Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (to be presented under Section 7 of the Act); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it concern a matter requiring my immediate attention?

Mr. King: It does, Mr. Speaker. Today's Order Paper shows that there are to be questions to the Prime Minister at 3.15 pm. Is that an innovation—which my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome, but which would terrify the Opposition—or simply a misprint?

Mr. Speaker: It is a misprint.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Recycling

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the environment protection technology scheme will include initiatives promoting recycling.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The EPT scheme supports research into technology, which will lead to higher environmental standards. We have decided to extend it to include aspects of recycling, which is a fundamental part of our policy to conserve resources and minimise pollution.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and the news that recycling will feature heavily in the scheme. The Environmental Protection Bill will encourage local councils to become involved in recycling. My hon. Friend is aware of the problems at Lodmoor near Weymouth where methane is leaking from landfill sites because waste disposal was not dealt with properly in years gone by. Both the local council and the county council are planning to spend community charge payers' money on recycling. Will my hon. Friend assure me that proper funding will be provided, particularly in view of the revenue support grant that is available this year?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Environmental Protection Bill requires waste collection authorities to draw up recycling plans and to report on them. Local authorities will not themselves be required to undertake recycling, and I hope that private sector companies will perform the work that my hon. Friend mentioned. We acknowledge the need to encourage the use of recycled products so that the process can be economical.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that many people take the recycling of paper and of glass bottles as a matter of course, will the Government now place emphasis on plastics recycling?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We intend to include in the EPT scheme research into plastics recycling. It is partly a problem of better collection and sorting, but research is needed also into the use of plastic products. We want to put money behind good research that will help to increase the present low percentage of use.

Mr. David Martin: Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental protection must be seen increasingly in an international context? As I understand that the European Environment Agency is looking for a home, will my hon. Friend promote the interests of Portsmouth as its location? Portsmouth has excellent links to the continent through its ferry port and roads, which would make it an ideal base for the agency.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Portsmouth would be a strong candidate, but we have chosen Cambridge as the candidate site that we are promoting to the European Commission. We hope very much that the agency will be sited in this country.

Ms. Walley: Everyone welcomes any recycling initiative, but does not the Minister acknowledge that there is no substitute for a national recycling plan? Will he have regard to the glut of recycled material collected by local authorities? Does he agree that there are at times more important matters than plain market forces, to consider—such as concern for the environment?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Hasty interference in the market has led to a glut of low-grade waste paper. Subsidies and mandatory recycling in West Germany and in certain American states have led to an oversupply of low-grade waste paper. We are anxious to match that supply with increased demand. The American experience shows that interference before planning has the opposite effect.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the Minister is aware that we are very conservation minded in south Devon, and that a large number of voluntary groups are collecting litter and paper. Will he explain what help the Government will give them so that they do not collect paper that nobody wants to use, thereby allowing the cutting down of more trees in the tropical rain forests?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I acknowledge the excellent work on recycling that my hon. Friend does. He refers to the glut of low-grade waste paper. I am aware that three investment schemes are in progress to improve the use of and increase the demand for waste paper. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to his points.

Homelessness

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent survey undertaken by his Department as to the number of homeless people living rough on the streets of London; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): The most recent count of rough sleepers in London was carried out last year by the department of psychology at the university of Surrey for the Salvation Army. It reported 753 people sleeping rough on the streets of 17 boroughs.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that that is a deplorable reply? A known problem is worsening month by month, and he says that the most recent survey was last year. Does he read the reports of the Salvation Army and the London housing unit, which outline the enormity of the problem? It has been caused directly by the Government—by the lack of low-rent accommodation and the cutting of benefits to those most in need. Instead of the supposed voice of concern, when will we hear from Ministers about real action to end this scandal in London and many other parts of Britain?

Mr. Spicer: Of course, we accept the seriousness of the problem of the number of people sleeping rough. We have already earmarked £250 million to relieve the problem of the homeless, and that will release some hostel space for people sleeping rough. As a matter of urgency, we are considering further steps to solve this serious problem.

Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his appointment and wish him well in his new responsibilities? Does he agree that a vigorous extension of the tenants' incentive scheme, to enable council tenants living in cities to move out and to buy their own home, would enable many homeless people currently living in bed and breakfast accommodation to be rehoused within 12 months? Will he confirm that that scheme will have high priority in his approach to dealing with the problem?

Mr. Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The thrust of our policies is to ensure that, first, new homes are built and, secondly, that they are owned by the people who live in them. We have a multitude of schemes for converting tenancy into ownership. That is a combination that will help to solve this serious problem.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to his own Department not carrying out surveys, it took the Home Office six months—from July to December last year—to write to me to explain that it does not collect statistics, except a year or a year and a half in arrears, on the number of young people who are being prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824, for homelessness on the streets of London? Does it not behove his Department and the Home Office to organise the statistical collection of information that I get week after week from barristers at the Horseferry road magistrates court, which is only 300 yd from this building, and from elsewhere in London? The evidence shows that every week more teenagers are being prosecuted for lack of money and for sleeping rough on the streets of London. When will the Minister get the facts?

Mr. Spicer: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman thought the matter through, he would appreciate that facts

are difficult to come by because of the nature of the problem. There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House about the seriousness of the matter. There is no question about that. The issue is how we are to solve the problem, and we are urgently applying our minds to that.

Mr. Jessel: What proportion of those people are young people under 18? Could not, and should not, some of that number return to live with their parents?

Mr. Spicer: It seems that a growing number of young people form part of the increasing population who are sleeping rough. It is certainly part of our policy to do as my hon. Friend suggests and encourage them to go home, and among the first things that the voluntary organisations do are to ask them why they left home and to try to persuade them to return.

Mr. Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the deplorable nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Housing Grants

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider linking grant rates to a definition of affordability of housing based on an agreed percentage of disposable income; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Landlords who provide rented housing with the help of public subsidy are already expected to charge rents within the reach of those in low-paid employment, and are best placed to decide what such rents should be.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it is wholly inadequate. Last year the Government forced the providers of such public housing—housing associations—to put up their rents by 24 per cent., thus compelling them to abandon the very goals that the right hon. Gentleman has just reiterated. Public housing rents are now forcing people into poverty.

Mr. Patten: I am not sure that the hon. Lady's propositions are entirely correct. As I believe she knows, the rates of grant for housing association schemes are aimed broadly at enabling housing associations to set rents that comply with the tenants' guarantee. We wish to stand by that guarantee, as do the Housing Corporation and housing associations, so that the accommodation that they provide is within reach of those in low-income employment.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the present generous system of housing benefit for those in need, low rents do nothing to help those with housing problems? What is more, do not Labour councils that are engaging in what might be called a rent holiday with the approach of the district council elections care less about housing problems than about gaining votes in those elections?

Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point: such conduct demonstrates the irresponsibility of some Labour authorities. As my hon. Friend implied, housing benefit covers any increases in rents and, as he knows, we are currently spending more than £5 billion on housing benefits.

Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State is not only complacent but ill-informed. That is probably why the turnover of Ministers responsible for housing has now reached a rate of more than one a year. Assuming that the present Minister remains in his post for long enough before being evicted, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that housing association rents went up by 24 per cent. last year? No one disputes that figure—except, apparently, the Secretary of State. If the Government really care about housing problems and homelessness, when will they get their act together and adopt a housing policy that delivers homes at prices that people can afford, whether for rent or for sale?

Mr. Patten: We have been fortunate in having a succession of excellent Ministers responsible for housing, although it would be invidious for me to suggest that each has been better than his or her predecessor. I am sure that my hon. Friend the current Minister is as delighted as I am that we are now set to double the Housing Corporation's programme, and that the money going to the housing associations is to increase twofold over the next three years.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who shout loudest for open government are often the last to divulge details of their own policies, particularly when it comes to housing?

Mr. Patten: It seems that the Opposition are opaque not only about their housing policies but about some of their other policies, particularly those on local government finance. They all wait avidly for the next appearance of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in the television studios so that they can learn something about Opposition policies.

Paint Spray Cans

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to protect the environment from the effects of paint spray cans.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Damage to property by graffiti—whether caused by spray paint or otherwise—is already an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, attracting a possible maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. However, the scourge of graffiti will be removed permanently only when it is brought home to those responsible that their activities are unacceptable. The role of parents and schools in this educative process is clearly of the utmost importance.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister is blaming everyone else. What does he intend to do to prevent the walls in practically every city in Britain being covered by disgusting graffiti? The Minister said nothing about that. First, why does he not introduce a simple law that would prevent paint spray cans being sold to people under 18? Secondly, why does he not introduce a law that would oblige people buying paint spray cans to give their name and address to the shop? The police could then easily trace them when graffiti appeared on walls in the neighbourhood. Simple measures such as that would deter children—it is children, not adults—from doing this. The way to deter them is not by Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Trippier: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about what is clearly a disgusting habit, but he is being uncharacteristically unfair when he says that we are hot doing anything about it. I have heard some of his suggestions before. I do not believe that they would be all that effective. They would be extremely difficult to enforce, particularly the taking of names and addresses. That would place an unduly onerous burden on shopkeepers. Many thousands of paint spray cans are sold for legitimate use every year. It is doubtful whether offenders could be tracked down. The House should acknowledge that the Department of the Environment is spending a sizeable amount of money, through its estate action programme, on helping to combat graffiti on rundown council estates. Under the urban programme, we are spending more than £500,000 on anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism projects.

Mr. Summerson: Will my hon. Friend consider using his good offices to persuade the manufacturers of paint spray cans to institute a recycling system? That would be much better than the Romanian idea put across by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to confirm that we are approaching those companies.

Homelessness

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to change the rules of local connection in the Government's review of the homelessness legislation.

Mr. Michael Spicer: We are committed to discussing with local authority associations a thorough overhaul of the "rules" of local connection. It is for local authorities to put forward their views on the most appropriate arrangements.

Mr. Skinner: I hardly dare ask whether the Minister is aware that, whatever rule changes are made with regard to local connection, they will be insignificant compared with the need for a massive public sector housebuilding programme throughout Britain. When the Minister goes to the Strand and sees people living in cardboard boxes, he will understand the reality of the past 10 years of running down the housebuilding programme. There are millions of bricks in stock, thousands of building workers ready to be employed and millions of homeless people. One does not need to be a Pythagoras to put the three together.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman and I have been sparring over coal matters for many years. He seems to be as wrong about this subject as he is about coal. A massive increase in funds is going through the Housing Corporation to housing associations. That will double the rate of build by those associations during the next two years. The hon. Gentleman is right that shelter must be provided. That is precisely what the Government are doing by means of a panoply of policies that affect both the private and the public sector. As those policies affect the private as well as the public sector, the hon. Gentleman ignores them.

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient housing accommodation in London to accommodate 10 times the number of homeless people there? The long-term homeless have turned their back on


society. Young offenders should be the responsibility of their parents, not of this Government. The Government have done quite enough for the homeless. I hope that they will spend no more money on them.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the problem of homelessness goes much deeper than Opposition Members seem to imply. It has to do, for instance, with the relationship between parents and their children, as my hon. Friend said. It is also an international problem; one of the countries in which it is rife is Denmark. The problem has been in existence for years. I was involved 25 years ago in the setting up of Crisis at Christmas, so homelessness has been with us for a long time. It is a great problem and it will be a great challenge to solve it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that homelessness goes no deeper than the fact that there are not enough homes at affordable prices for people who desperately need them? One does not need a degree in housing administration to work that out. Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in the mid-1970s local authorities in London were building about 25,000 units of accommodation a year, whereas last year they built fewer than 2,000? That is the problem of homelessness: the homes are not being built.
Will the Minister assure us that the Department will carry out a full survey of homelessness in London? As he is new to his job, will he take up the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and go out to the streets of London to see this critical problem?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised, perhaps, to know that one of the first things that I did in my new job was to go out to see the problem on the streets, as he might have expected of me. Part of the homelessness problem has been caused by the tremendous mismanagement by councils of their estates throughout the country, which has resulted in uninhabitable properties being empty. That is one of the reasons why we are spending £250 million to upgrade those properties—that is a contribution to solving the homelessness problem.

Thomas Brown (Waste Disposal Licence)

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision concerning the appeal by Thomas Brown of Whinfield farm, Pennington, regarding the revocation by Cumbria county council of his waste disposal licence, lodged in summer 1988.

Mr. Trippier: Written representations have been completed on this appeal, lodged on 16 September 1988, and an official from the Department will make a site visit on 20 February. The Secretary of State hopes to be able to determine the appeal once he has received the site visit report.

Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken a personal interest in this matter since I tabled the question. I am sure that he will agree, if only in private, that it is not only unsatisfactory, but an utter disgrace that it has taken 18 months for the Department to arrange a routine site inspection on a routine appeal. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity provided by this question, and

by others tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to look at the appeals procedure, which is the weakest part of the planning process?

Mr. Trippier: I am prepared to go further than my hon. Friend expects me to, in that I am prepared to say publicly that I think the delay wholly unacceptable. I am grateful to him for drawing this matter to my attention. There is certainly enormous pressure on staff time, but, as a result of my hon. Friend drawing this matter to my attention, I shall ensure that the process is speeded up.

Pollution Inspectorate

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the staffing and resources of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution.

Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations, mainly from hon. Members and from, or on behalf of, local authorities.

Mr. Michael: What will the Minister do about those representations? Vacancies are running at about 20 per cent. across professional grades; there is low morale and poor recruitment; and about 32 staff, compared with Holland's 1,000, are dealing with air pollution. So how does the Minister expect us to believe that the Government are serious about tackling pollution?

Mr. Trippier: It was the Government's idea to set up the inspectorate in the first place and we are very proud of that. The inspectorate of pollution is a powerful agency, set up by us and staffed by talented and highly dedicated people who are committed to ensuring better protection of the environment. It is very sad that the hon. Gentleman should seek to devalue the currency of that. It is true that there are vacancies now, but as I told the first sitting of the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill yesterday, whatever resources HMIP needs to do its job it will have.
We have been short of applications for the vacancies, but in the past we have been short of people who were up to the necessary quality to fill the vacancies. We have an accelerated recruitment programme, which we hope will end by February, by when I hope to be able to tell the House that we have filled the vacancies.

Mr. Onslow: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority?

Mr. Trippier: Yes, I have on this specific matter, and we shall have to consider them under the Environmental Protection Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister expand on his statement in Committee yesterday that whatever resources HMIP requires in future will be available? Will he confirm that that has been cleared with the Treasury, and will the same resources be allocated to local authorities, which under part I of the Bill, will share responsibility with HMIP?

Mr. Trippier: The recruitment of local authority staff is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment or any other Department. Several local authorities would have much to say if we were so to


interfere. I think that the hon. Lady prepared her supplementary question prior to hearing my substantive answer to the question on the Order Paper. I clearly said that HMIP will be given whatever resources it needs to do its job.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that noise is one of the problems being considered under the Environmental Protection Bill? Will he further confirm that the Department of Transport appears heavily to have censored the content of the Bill, and will he take this opportunity, if I am wrong, to deny that it has insisted that aircraft noise be excluded from consideration?

Mr. Trippier: It is true that we have set up a committee to study noise and that we shall consider certain aspects of noise pollution under the Environmental Protection Bill. The Department of Transport is reviewing aircraft noise. Whether it will be involved in considerations prior to the White Paper is another matter.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest initiatives to publicise the introduction of the poll tax.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): A public information campaign is currently taking place. It is designed to ensure that as many as possible of the 10 million people who could be helped through the payment of community charge benefit, and of the 6 million people who could be helped through the provision of transitional relief, know whether they need to apply in order to receive such help.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that no matter how much the Department spends on television advertisements, such as the pensioner telling her dog "Flash" about so-called community charge benefit, the reality is that 1 million people in Scotland are not paying the poll tax? They are likely to be joined in April by millions more in England and Wales [HON. MEMBERS: "Including Labour Members?"] Yes, including more than 30 of my hon. Friends. The Minister may think that the battle ended last Thursday with the containment of a few Tory rebels, but, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "He ain't seen nothing yet."

Mr. Hunt: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully reflect on what he has just said. He is in a position of authority by virtue of his membership of this honourable House. Will he reflect on the fact that by his action his constituents will have to pay a higher community charge so that he and his cronies can have a free ride?

Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a press release from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) which mentions up to 30 Labour Members of Parliament joining a mass non-payment campaign? Will he accept that those of us who have always been agnostic about the community charge have never suggested that we support non-payment? We fully represent and recognise Parliament's standing in passing laws. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that any campaign to encourage the

non-payment of taxes can only be in the worst interests of this country and, above all, can only reflect badly on the Labour party?

Mr. Hunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The privilege of membership of this mother of Parliaments confers on us not only rights and privileges but also duties and responsibilities. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) sets a very bad example to the country in seeking to urge others not to pay as well as saying that he will not himself pay the community charge. It is, however, very much a matter for the Labour party, and I urge the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and his colleagues to join me in condemning the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that we will have any difficulty in defeating the poll tax at the ballot box.
Given the Secretary of State's admission last Thursday that the standard spending assessment system on which local authorities' assessment of need is based is inadequate, given that the distribution system was admitted to be flawed and in need of revision for next year and given the undisputed fact that poll tax figures in at least two thirds of local authorities will be somewhere in the region of £60 to £100 above the Government's target figures, will the Minister stop blaming local government and admit that the £3 so-called ceiling on increases is a myth and that the transition system which is being publicised is, therefore, unacceptably flawed when it comes to what people will get? Will he redirect our money away from propaganda and towards telling people the truth?

Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not take this early opportunity of criticising his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East and of making it clear that his hon. Friend would get no support from him.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's other points, we made it clear in the debate, and I made it clear to the Association of District Councils yesterday, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are perfectly prepared to look at any new evidence that councils wish to adduce as to why their position under the standard spending assessment should be improved. That remains our position. It is now a fact, however, that as the last piece of the jigsaw goes in and every council in the country knows the amount of external finance that it will receive, the level of the community charge is now up to every council to decide.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many well-conducted councils face a tremendously above-average increase in the community charge? After this first year, will he please go into the whole question of the grant formula to see whether councils can be more fairly treated?

Mr. Hunt: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is an effective lobbyist on behalf of his area and the Warwickshire county council. I reiterate that we shall look at any new evidence that he seeks to adduce as to why the standard spending asessment in Warwickshire does not reflect the county's actual needs, but I remind him that nationally the total of the SSAs is 11 per cent. above the equivalent total for grant-related expenditures in the coming year and the external finance goes up by 8.5 per cent.

Homelessness

Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness.

Mr. Michael Spicer: In consultation with local authority associations and voluntary organisations, we are now taking forward the proposals that my right hon. Friend set out in his statement of 15 November, following our review of the homelessness legislation.

Mr. Orme: Following the exchanges this afternoon, does not the Minister agree that this issue is now a national scandal? It is not just a London problem but is to be found throughout the cities and towns of our country, including my own area of Manchester and Salford? Will his Department initiate a census and report back to the House within one month on the size of the problem and how to deal with it?

Mr. Spicer: This is not just a problem in London or the other cities in the United Kingdom, it is an international problem—many countries suffer from the same phenomenon at present.
It is very difficult to get accurate figures because the population is mobile, but we aim to get as accurate a picture as possible because, as the right hon. Member and many other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the matter is one of considerable urgency to us. There is no question about that. I give the House a firm assurance that we are treating the problem in an urgent manner. The amount of £2 million is available to voluntary organisations to be used to the best advantage.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As my hon. Friend said in answer to an earlier question, one of the main causes of homelessness is the apparent shortage of rented accommodation, especially in London. Does he recall that last year the Environment Select Committee made it clear that Labour-controlled housing authorities were keeping properties empty for inordinate periods? That is grossly inefficient. What are my hon. Friend and his colleagues doing to ensure that those authorities make better use of their housing stock, thereby reducing homelessness in the capital?

Mr. Spicer: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched many programmes that have that effect. The estate action programme is a highly imaginative scheme which the Government introduced to ensure that, in particular, Labour-controlled council property is put to far better use than it has been recently. I agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that many voluntary organisations catering for the homeless are desperately short of money? How much of the £2 million will be distributed to the north-west of England, where we have a great homelessness problem, or is the Minister leaving it entirely to voluntary organisations to sort the matter out?

Mr. Spicer: No. The Government will be deeply involved in the allocation of the funds. We may use the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux as a means of co-ordinating part of the distribution of the funds. The Government are taking an intense interest in the allocation.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that anyone in his right mind has much sympathy with people who are homeless? Over the past few weeks, and especially last Thursday, the Birmingham Evening Mail ran 48 pages of job advertisements. All those jobs were available for people who wanted them. People who have the good jobs that are advertised in the Birmingham Evening Mail can afford a home. Let us not think that anyone who is homeless is deprived by the Government—often such people do not want to work and do not want to thrive.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. It must be said, however, that one of the features of those who are roofless and sleeping rough is, of course, that they find it difficult to get jobs.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Of course.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend says, "Of course." That is one reason why the problem is unacceptable. Many of these people are children, and our first advice to them is, therefore, to go back to their parents.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyls.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans to ban the importation of all polychlorinated biphenyl waste. To do so would be environmentally irresponsible when we have facilities for safe disposal and effective notification and monitoring controls. But the Environmental Protection Bill contains powers to restrict, and if necessary to ban, imports of waste—including PCB waste—where there are risks of pollution or harm to human health.

Mr. Livsey: Given that the Government are moving towards banning transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for tabling an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to prevent toxic waste and PCBs coming to Britain from developed countries?

Mr. Patten: We have argued within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Community that, by and large, developed countries—the OECD members—should deal with their own toxic waste. We must limit the amount of movement of toxic waste between countries. I do not think that it would be right to press for a ban. If I did that, I would be a Secretary of State whose decisions had led to illegal dumping at sea and on African beaches.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmental pollution does not recognise national frontiers? We would like industrial waste, especially toxic waste, disposed of in the country of origin. Nevertheless, because Britain has at its disposal plant that is capable of handling such waste safely, we have a moral duty to the rest of the world to accept it, and that is totally in keeping with our lead on green matters internationally.

Mr. Patten: We have first-class technology, as my hon. Friend says, for dealing with toxic waste. The House probably recognises that the overwhelming majority of


waste that we deal with is produced in this country; only about 5 per cent. of it comes from abroad. That is a far smaller proportion than in many other countries.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State condemn the practice of Rechem International—the chemical company that imports PCBs—of issuing writs like confetti against anyone who criticises it, thus stifling any possibility of public debate? Fourteen writs have been issued. I must admit a vested interest; I am one of the 14 people being sued. Will not the Minister accept that what he has said is wrong? There are plans for increasing the amount of imports. Will he confirm that between October 1988 and August 1989, 6,700 tonnes of toxic waste came into the country, that Rechem is increasing its capacity for incinerating toxic waste and PCBs from 82,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes and that the Government are allowing one shipload of toxic waste and PCBs a week into the country? The Government are ministering purposely over the trade in poison to mask the balance of payments deficit in manufactured goods.

Mr. Patten: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards that is average nonsense. I do not want to come between the hon. Gentleman and his solicitors or anybody else's solicitors. The figures that I gave earlier are correct. Only about 5 per cent. of the waste that is dealt with in this country comes from abroad. We have pressed internationally to limit as much as possible the movement of toxic waste. We will continue to press home that initiative.

New Towns Commission

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The date of my next meeting with the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Soames: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns, will he remind him that the commission made an exceptionally successful investment in properties of which it is now disposing in new towns, from which the taxpayer is being paid a handsome return? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Treasury to see whether it is possible to establish from the proceeds of the sales a charitable fund of a very small amount per annum, the percentage to be agreed, to provide community projects in the new towns concerned?

Mr. Chope: The commission already has power under statute to make contributions to local charities and other voluntary organisations. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the extent of those contributions. I shall be happy to raise that matter at my next meeting with the chairman of the commission.

Water Standards

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the capital investment required to meet European Community directives on water standards.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have notified the Commission of the £1·8 billion that water undertakers in

England and Wales will be spending over the next five years to remedy current situations of non-compliance with the EC drinking water directive.
Water companies also have investment programmes totalling £1·4 billion to improve bathing water quality.

Mr. Welsh: Why is it taking European court action against the British Government to force the pace in bringing British water supplies up to recommended European standards? Is it not disgraceful that levels of aluminium, lead and other substances above European standards are daily being ingested by millions of people in Britain? As a lead pipe replacement programme would solve the lead problem, is the Minister encouraging his housing colleagues to reverse their present policy of reducing finance for such a project as part of a general scheme to bring British water supplies up to European standards?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman mentioned lead. In fact, our national standards are more stringent than that required under the European directive. He also mentioned aluminium, where the directive standard is aesthetic rather than for health reasons because water containing aluminium can appear cloudy even though it is safe to drink. We have drawn up a comprehensive and fully funded programme of compliance and agreed it with the water service companies

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Richard Holt.

Hon. Members: Favouritism.

Mr. Speaker: It is not favouritism, it is compassion.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend may be aware that at lunchtime today I had the privilege of hosting a table of parliamentary guests from Belgium, who are in this country to discuss water because of the excellence of our supplies. They said that Brussels does not have a single water purification plant. In view of that, before the EEC starts telling us what to do with our water, it should get its own house in order.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We understand that the Commission has begun infraction proceedings against virtually every other member state. Even if we do appear before the European Court for an alleged breach of the drinking water directive, it will be our first case. I remind my hon. Friend that 68 other breaches of environmental directives by other member states have already come to court. Instead of being the dirty man of Europe, we have one of the best programmes and records of compliance of any country in Europe.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not London water recycled six or seven times? That may go down well with some people—possibly because it is time that people in the city had a pure water supply. Is not that a basic right? Is it not something that the Government should consider with real intent as these basic issues will arise time and again? It is a rip off.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: London water is entirely safe to drink, even if it has been recycled through the hon. Gentleman. The Water Act 1989, by placing those companies in the private sector, has given them access to additional investment finance, while setting rigorous independent scrutiny by regulations.

Housing Investment

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the announcement of allocations to local authorities for their housing investment programmes in 1990–91.

Mr. Chope: Very few representations have been received. While some have been critical, others have welcomed the doubling of HIP allocations in 1990–91 and the better targeting of those resources.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend will be aware that, during progress on last year's Local Government Housing Bill, I made several representations about the specific problems in the urban areas of Taunton Deane. We are grateful for the recognition of those problems in next year's allocations. We also note that the inner cities again receive the lion's share of the new money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) pointed out, Labour councils do not always use their resources effectively. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, do his best to ensure that those Labour councils fill their empty council homes, collect rent and rate arrears and work constructively with the private sector to meet housing need?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his appreciation of the increased HIP allocation for Taunton Deane. It has almst quadrupled for next year and it shows the effectiveness of our new system of targeting. My hon. Friend was right to express frustration at the way that many Labour authorities use the large sums of money that the Government make available to them. I hope that more of them will heed his points and get better value for money.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister confirm that local authority associations have made repeated representations to his Department because the HIP programme has been reduced? Will he also confirm that the reduction during the past 10 years under this Government has meant a reduction in affordable homes and in homes available for the elderly? Even with the increase for 1991, is there not a reduction of more than 25 per cent. on last year because of the way that the housing programme has been manipulated by his Department? When will he give the full facts about the housing investment programme and about the needs and demands of the local authorities that are required to meet the need for affordable housing?

Mr. Chope: I am sorry to have to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. HIP allocations next year will be more than £2 billion, which is more than double this year's allocation, and total public expenditure on housing capital next year will be more than £4·4 billion, which is 7 per cent. higher than this year's provision.

Association of District Councils

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what was discussed.

Mr. Chris Patten: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities addressed the ADC national symposium yesterday. He spoke about the revenue support grant settlement.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Amber Valley has done extremely well out of the safety net arrangements, for which we are extremely grateful to the areas that have contributed? Does he also agree that if the community charge in Derbyshire generally ends up being higher than the estimates, it will be due solely to the profligacy of Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Patten: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and I look also for the endorsement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Gould: But what answer can the Secretary of State give to the Tory chairman of the ADC, who said last week on behalf of the association that the Government's poll tax estimates were artificially low? What answer can he give to poll tax payers in Tory-controlled districts and elsewhere who, when their bills arrive on 1 April, will be outraged to find that they are required to pay much more than the Government have so far let on? What answer can he give to his own hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who know all too well what is in store for their constituents, or does he think that all those people are wrong and only he is right?

Mr. Patten: I give to those councillors and to others the answer that I gave the House last week—the main determinant in community charge levels next year will be the rate of spending by local authorities. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will be answering the point put by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities earlier this afternoon. We waited with edge-of-the-seat enthusiasm just now to discover whether the hon. Gentleman would condemn his hon. Friend the free riders of the Militant tendency.

Council House Sales

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the right-to-buy legislation since 1980.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The 174,000 sales in 1988–89 bring the number of tenants who have exercised their right to buy their homes to more than 1·1 million.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. Does he agree that the sale of council houses represents the greatest shift of assets to the individual that the United Kingdom has ever experienced, and would he care to comment on the Labour party's policy? Although the Opposition say that they would maintain the sale of council houses, they will not confirm that they will maintain the discount system. Does my hon. Friend further agree that, without discounts, the sale of council houses would stop and that the Labour party's policy is typical humbug yet again?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right on all counts, I think, although the Labour party's policy on the right to buy is a bit of a mystery. It seems that the Opposition have performed a volte face and decided that they now like a policy that they originally attacked, as they attack so many of our policies at their inception. On the other hand, there seems to be no question of the Labour party's giving incentives to buy. Moreover, it would seem from leaks of the Labour party's policy that its new policy on local


taxation would give a kick in the teeth to those who have bought their council houses. I do not know what sort of a policy that is.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that some Labour Members have always been pleased to support the provision of opportunities for working people to obtain their own homes, either by purchase or by rent? What we find criminal is that the selling-off of existing council houses has not been complemented by the building of new council houses for people who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. Is it not a very one-sided and unfair policy that correctly provides for the majority of people in Scotland and throughout Britain to purchase their own homes but at the same time deprives local authorities of the moneys necessary to provide the homeless and those on low incomes, who have no prospect of purchasing their own homes, with a roof over their heads?

Mr. Spicer: The Government take account of the total housing stock in Britain, and that has been expanding rapidly particularly in recent times. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a massive increase ahead in expenditure in public sector housing by the Housing Corporation and housing associations, which will combine public with private money to build new homes, and that is precisely the way it should go in future.

Olympic Games

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet those bidding to host the 1996 Olympic games in Manchester.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I met members of the bid team on 2 October last year to discuss progress on Manchester's Olympic bid and am ready to meet them again at any time. They are well aware of the Government's enthusiastic support for Manchester's bid.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among those who support this bid that the unofficial cricket tour of South Africa may jeopardise Manchester's chances of hosting the Olympics in 1996? Does he agree that that would be most unfair to Manchester? Will he use his considerable influence with the Olympic authorities to promote Manchester's bid for 1996?

Mr. Moynihan: I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears will be confirmed. On the contrary, I believe that the bid will be looked at on its merits. Manchester and the north-west of England have a long and illustrious sporting tradition and are well versed in providing for the very best in sport. I am confident that holding the games in Manchester would be a fitting tribute to the centenary of the modern Olympic movement.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does anyone not have a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: A good question. Mr. Heffer first.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised some points with the Prime Minister in relation to the chairman of the Conservative party, you were quick to rush in and tell him that the Prime Minister had no responsibility. I did not argue with that; we all know she has not.
But today, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) raised the question of Labour party policy. He droned on for some time and you did not make a move, Mr. Speaker, in relation to that matter. If we are to have a decision about Conservative party policy—I do not disagree with that—then the same must apply to the Labour party and—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heffer: It must apply to the Labour party and—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heffer: —to any other party in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. This is an abuse. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has been here long enough to know that we frequently discuss party politics across the Floor of the Chamber. What happened yesterday—and I am not prepared to go over what happened yesterday—as the hon. Member for Walton well knows, is that there was a question to the Prime Minister from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) about an individual Member, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). It was not about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. James Pawsey: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the real point at issue—

Mr. Heffer: I had not finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to bully me. I have given the hon. Member an answer. Mr. Pawsey.

Mr. Heffer: But, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pawsey: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the real point at issue the fact that no Member rose from the Opposition Benches actually to say what Labour policy was on the discount of council houses?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a clear continuation of Question Time. I will take points of order now, if they are

matters with which I can deal, but we cannot have a continuation of Question Time or, as I have said to the hon. Member for Walton, a continuation of what went on yesterday. That was bad enough.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. News is just coming through that a helicopter on hire by Strathclyde police has crashed on a sheltered housing complex near Eastwood Toll in my constituency. I understand that at least one death has been reported so far. Would you consider sympathetically a request from the Scottish Office for a statement to be made on the matter in the near future?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, although I am sure that the House will be distressed to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say. However, I am sure that his comments have been heard by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, and understanding your problems, you will be aware that, just before 3.30 pm, you called the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), who asked a very important question about attracting the Olympic games to this country. He associated that point, quite rightly, with the vital question of South Africa and the views of the British Government which will dominate that matter. However, you did not find it possible to call a Labour Member, not even myself. I wonder whether you could exercise a little tolerance so that we can express our views about that matter.

Mr. Speaker: I saw the right hon. Gentleman looking at the clock, which read 3.31 pm. Question Time ends at 3.30 pm, and I am sorry that I was not able to call him.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) or for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for a statement by a member of the Treasury Front Bench on the apparent unclearness of the Customs regulation?

Mr. Speaker: I have not.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully ask that later this afternoon you obtain a transcript of the Official Report of the last few minutes of Question Time. If you would be so kind, would you read the question from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—Question No. 15—because I believe that at the time that he asked his question you were being distracted? I could see the Clerks in front of you trying to attract your attention to make the point that I am about to make.
I for one, and I suspect many of my hon. Friends also, do not mind if Tory Members want to raise aspects of Labour party policy, because we are quite capable of answering those points—as long as the application of the rules of the House are wide enough to allow my hon. Friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) yesterday, the same rights as—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. As far as the Clerks are concerned, they were, I think, warning me about the time. It was getting on for 3.30 pm.

Mr. Nellist: You are smiling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not suggesting that it is open to him and his hon. Friends to attack the Government for their policies, but not to hear an attack from the Government on Opposition policies. That would not be fair.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just a simple point: is it in order for an hon. Member to incite people to break the law? If it is, will you at least deprecate that?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says here, to ensure that it is in order, and also for his actions.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has put out a press release headed "MPs defy the Poll Tax". The paper on which that press release is printed carries the House of Commons portcullis crest and also a note of a House of Commons telephone number for inquiries about that incitement to break the law. Will you rule whether the rules of the House in any way allow the use of the portcullis and House of Commons telephone lines to incite breaches of the law?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that that is not in order. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, he should, as I said yesterday when a similar matter was raised, send that evidence to the Services Committee which deals with such matters.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition day. If there are points of order with which I can deal, I will take them.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Could not the difficulty manifested in the turmoil today and yesterday be neatly resolved if you were to say that, when hon. Members make points of order they should distinguish between two new categories—television points of order and real points of order?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have my own private thoughts on matters of that kind.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have a reputation second to none for safeguarding Members of this House. I wonder whether you could use your position and your involvement with the Commonwealth Speakers Conference to have a word with the Speaker in Singapore about whether he will take steps to ensure that hon. Members visiting Singapore have their affairs safeguarded. In a recent case, three

Members fell for a situation in which a shopkeeper gave a very low receipt. This has caused problems in this country. If you, Sir, were to have a word with the Singapore Speaker, and if Members who were overseas were looked after properly, this sort of embarrassment would not occur.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that the Speaker in Singapore would relish that added responsibility.

Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two and a half years ago, in response to a query from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), you deprecated the Liberals' habit of putting down questions relating specifically to other Members' constituencies. There is a series of early-day motions on the Order Paper that relate specifically to the constituencies of Members of this House. Does your deprecation of questions, both oral and written, relating to specific constituencies extend to early-day motions?

Mr. Speaker: This matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am considering what I can legitimately do about it.

Mr. Barry Field: You, Mr. Speaker, are responsible for the proper conduct in and working of this House. I believe that the influence of Militant Tendency on MPs' conduct is a matter of considerable concern to Members on both sides. You, Sir, will not be aware that the Isle of Wight Labour party has condemned the "Don't pay, won't pay" campaign against the poll tax or community charge—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is seeking to carry on Question Time. The point that he seeks to raise is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is an Opposition day, but I will call Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is considerable difficulty in raising questions about the internal workings of government—in fact, it is impossible to do so—yet it has been widely reported that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is just leaving the Chamber, was humiliated by the Prime Minister when she restored the trade in ivory and thus put the African elephant at risk—a matter which concerns many hon. Members. Would it be possible to table questions about the Prime Minister overruling the Secretary of State for the Environment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in this House we will maintain our tradition of debating party policies rather than individual differences within parties. That is not our traditional practice in this House.

Rent Acts (Repeal)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Rent Act 1957, the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent (Amendment) Act 1984.
This Bill would repeal what remains of the Rent Acts. My objective is to increase the supply of modestly priced accommodation available for renting in the private sector so that no one need sleep out in a cardboard box or spend years in bed-and-breakfast accommodation while on a waiting list for a council flat, or pay an extortionate amount of key money to obtain a tenancy in what remains of rent-controlled property.
Everyone in this Chamber knows full well that Members of Parliament, at their surgeries, deal endlessly with people who come for help to find accommodation or to shift from one council estate to another. Certainly half of the people who come to my surgeries are in that position.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I know that, when we were young, there was an adequate supply of privately rented housing for people of modest means. My family lived in a flat in the top half of a house, but if we chose to move, we were able to do so. In those days, people even did moonlight flits from one private rented flat to another. There was somewhere for them to go. It is not true that today there is a shortage of low-cost housing; it is just that people who own that property are afraid to rent it out because they see the Rent Acts as an obstacle to their control over the situation.
We must ask ourselves what has happened to the market since the days when you and I, Mr. Speaker, were young people and could find somewhere to rent. Of course, we have retained the Rent Acts which were introduced as emergency measures during wartime.
A Swedish economist has said that, short of saturation bombing, the best way to create a critical shortage of housing is to control property through rent legislation. In Sweden, where there was a similar problem to ours, the Swedish Government took a step forward and removed what remained of rent control. Sweden now has a surplus of housing, and young people can pick and choose in the accommodation market. If Sweden, the Socialist Utopia, can do that, it is surely time that we, under a Government dedicated to the principle of creating markets, should also take that step.
People watching this programme may ask, "How does it affect my tenancy if I am a tenant in the private sector?"

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a programme for the television; it is a debate in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is speaking to her motion. It is the case that it is in the view of the television cameras.

Mrs. Gorman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People who rent property may be worried about what remains of the Rent Acts disappearing, but property in the council and private sectors is already subject to market rents. By creating a new pool of rented property, we will help to secure tenancies. When I was Westminster city council's vice-chairman of housing, we examined the

census for central London alone, and pinpointed 10,000 units which were under-let, not let or available for let only as holiday rents.
People would rather leave their properties empty than risk losing control over them, which is what currently happens. We have turned the landlord into a bogyman, and we have made it shameful to rent property. Therefore, it is not surprising that people are reluctant to adopt the role when they have a spare room in their homes. I am sure that my proposal would release such property into the marketplace.
Whenever the state seeks to take over the provision of any service—for example, education, health, roads and housing—we get shortages, queues and human misery. We know that, when the free market is allowed to operate—for example, in food, clothing, holidays and leisure pursuits—there is a surplus, because we are catering for people's needs and aspirations.
There is no shortage of privately owned cars, but there is a shortage of roads on which to drive them; there is no shortage of television sets, washing machines and other things to put in the home, but there is a shortage of homes to put them in. My legislation would partially correct that problem.
If the Opposition seek to divide the House on this simple, modest measure, people will conclude only that they wish to continue their doctrinaire attitude that only the state should provide housing for the people. However, my party is dedicated to the idea that, by restoring markets and by giving people the freedom to supply a service without unnecessary encumbrance, we will increase the supply of that service. That is what people want.
I acknowledge what the Government have already done, particularly in the Housing Act 1988, in recreating assured and shorthold tenancies, but people living in cardboard boxes in inner London cannot apply for tenancies because they lack the necessary references or respectability to do so. If we can release the spirit of the kindly landlady—the type of landlady I had when I first left school and rented a room in a private home—we will supply housing that can serve those people's needs.
That principle is the one at which my Bill is directed and to which the Government are dedicated. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: I suppose that it is logical for the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to make the arguments that she has, because her belief in the market is well known to all of us. She does not believe in any form of legislative interference at all and her belief in the free market can be described as being the same as that of any 18th or 19th-century Whig. She has a political attitude of her own that can best be described as the stone age tendency with some fraternal leaping towards ticket touts.
The hon. Lady's Bill refers to the Rent Act 1957. Most Tory Members would not be happy to refer to that legislation, which was piloted through the House by someone whose fervent enthusiasm for the free market is no less than that of the hon. Member for Billericay. I refer to Mr. Enoch Powell, who was then a junior housing Minister.

Mrs. Gorman: He is a brilliant man.

Mr. Minnick: On Second Reading of that legislation, Mr. Powell said—now we shall learn how brilliant he was—
It will halt the drain upon rented accommodation, it will release additional accommodation which is under-used or wasted, it will arrest the deterioration of millions of houses for lack of maintenance, and it will give to persons who are moving or setting up home the opportunity to find accommodation in the market."—[Official Report, 21 November 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1775.]
Those are almost identical to the words used by the hon. Member for Billericay. Mr. Powell was proved wrong, and not for the first time—just as the hon. Lady herself has been proved wrong.
In June 1956, privately rented dwellings numbered about 6.5 million, but by December 1961, after the Rent Act 1957 had done its work, that figure had been reduced—I emphasise the word "reduced"—to less than 5 million. The abuses that were a consequence of the 1957 Act are known to us all. That legislation brought such misery and hardship to countless people that, when Labour was returned to office in 1964, the then Tory Opposition could not bring themselves to defend it and did not argue against new legislation introduced by the Housing Minister, Richard Crossman.
Recently, Ministers said that the Housing Act 1988 would lead to a revival of the private rented sector, and there were questions on that subject today. We know that there has been no such revival, but a revival only of the practice last seen around the beginning of this century, of people having to sleep in the open, for instance, just five minutes' walk from this House. Night after night, they are forced like people elsewhere to tolerate such conditions because they cannot afford market rents.
The purpose of the hon. Lady's Bill is to take away the legal rights of tenants who were in occupation before the Housing Act 1988 came into force. If her Bill ever became law, the rights of more than 1 million tenants would be denied. There is enough intimidation and pressure on private tenants already, without that happening. I suggest that a more appropriate title for the hon. Lady's Bill would be the Return of Rachmanism Bill.
The 1957 Act failed totally and the Housing Act 1988 is also failing. The Department of the Environment refuses to answer my questions about how many new tenancies have been created by that legislation. The real need is not for a supposed revival of the private rented sector, which will never come about, but for local authorities and genuine housing associations to be permitted once again to do the job that they should be doing, and build new accommodation. It is not just the homeless as such: I have constituents, even families with two children living in council flats, who now have to wait years before they have the opportunity to get a house.
Some Tory Members referred at Question Time today to the number of council dwellings that have been sold. That is fair enough, but why should they not be replaced? Why should people be penalised because they do not have the means to obtain a mortgage or to pay the market rate for private rented accommodation? Why should so many of our constituents be penalised, be inadequately housed, or have to live in the type of accommodation that I have just described, or, what is even worse, in bed and breakfast accommodation?
The solution to the problem will result not from the hon. Lady's Bill but from a Labour Government allowing local authorities and genuine housing associations to build

houses. That is the solution to the housing problem, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 167.

Division No. 44]
[3.55 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Alexander, Richard
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Amos, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Monro, Sir Hector


Body, Sir Richard
Mudd, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Pawsey, James


Brazier, Julian
Rhodes James, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Riddick, Graham


Buck, Sir Antony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Budgen, Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


Butcher, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Sims, Roger


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Speller, Tony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Sir Marcus
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Fry, Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thurnham, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ward, John


Hannam, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Hayward, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Hordern, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Mr. Barry Field and


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Mr. David Evans.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Battle, John
Eadie, Alexander


Beith, A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flannery, Martin


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cartwright, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clay, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Cox, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Cummings, John
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cunningham, Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)






Howells, Geraint
O'Brien, William


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Jo


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livsey, Richard
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sillars, Jim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Ells


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martlew, Eric
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maxton, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Tony Banks.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Schools

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I do not have the authority to limit speeches to 10 minutes on an Opposition day, when two subjects for debate have been chosen. However, I hope that both Front-Bench and Back-Bench speakers will bear in mind the fact that, if they are able to limit their speeches to 10 minutes, many more hon. Members will be called.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for the divisiveness and failure of its schools policies; notes that Britain now spends a lower proportion of its national wealth on education than in 1979, that fewer children receive nursery education, that a lower proportion of young people stay on in full-time education post-16 than in competitor countries, and that teacher morale has never been lower; and believes that unless there is effective investment in education and training with a properly valued and well motivated teaching profession, the Government will fail the next generation and further undermine Britain's economic prospects.
The Government's schools policies have clearly failed. Britain's teachers are underpaid, demoralised and leaving the profession. Children have to learn in squalid, underfunded conditions. The whole system is overloaded with hasty and ill-considered changes. Worst of all, the Secretary of State is blind to the scale of the problems that he now faces, as the complacent claptrap of the Government's amendment makes clear.
When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will no doubt feed the House with a series of comforting platitudes about the Government's record and intentions. He will ask us to accept his claim that there has been no deterioration in teacher resignations, no overall change in teacher supply during the last few years—as though the mid-1980s was a golden age of English education, when standards rose, choice was extended, books and equipment were plentiful and every child had a permanent, properly qualified and well-paid teacher in front of his or her class. However, Sir Keith Joseph was in office those few years ago, to be followed by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).
What this Secretary of State must grasp is that the crisis over which he presides has arisen not just in the six months during which he has been in office, although it may sometimes seem that way. Instead, this crisis is the consequence of the accumulation of 10 years of damage and neglect; 10 years in which one year's flight of experienced teachers out of the profession has turned the screw on the next year's; 10 years in which one year's cuts in books and equipment and redecoration has compounded the next year's; 10 years in which each year's lack of investment means a generation of children who have been denied the educational choice—

Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
These have been 10 years in which each year's lack of investment and intellectual self-fulfilment has meant a generation of children denied the educational choice and intellectual self-fulfilment to which they are entitled. They have been 10 years in which the nation has fallen further behind our competitors in its skills and ability to compete.
A rising proportion of parents now believe that the general standards of education have fallen in the past few years. An overwhelming proportion of the electorate believe that the Government want to run down public services such as education and health. And the difference between the Secretary of State and the electorate is that the electorate have direct experience of the Government's neglect of education—he does not.

Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the most notable reforms of the Conservative Government, especially in London, was the abolition of the Inner London education authority. Will he give me an unequivocal answer: will the Labour party bring back an Inner London education authority or not?

Mr. Straw: As I shall say later in my speech, there is no question but that the gratuitous and unwarranted abolition of the ILEA has made a difficult situation for teacher recruitment much worse in inner London; I know that as a parent. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: no, I do not give that unequivocal assurance. Nor have I ever given it, because, unlike Conservative Members, we care about the education and about the children of inner London. Having seen the damage caused to them by one disruption, we shall not, in a cavalier way and without consulting parents or teachers, force further change. When we have won the next election, we shall carefully consult the boroughs and parents and teachers about what arrangements they think best for the education of the children of inner London.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is my hon. Friend also aware that, the interjection by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), notwithstanding, the Inner London education authority was abolished against the wishes of the parents and teachers of London? The hon. Member for Surbiton, who lives in the borough of Wandsworth, knows that meetings were called there at which total opposition to abolition was expressed—and the hon. Gentleman was never at the meetings.

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand what my hon. Friend says. The abolition of ILEA was an act of political spite with no educational justification. Those of us with children in ILEA schools have seen the difficulties that those schools have had to face in the past two years because of the Government's deliberate disruption of children's education and of the administration of education. Ministers' children do not go to school in ILEA or any other—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Straw: I must get on.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment. Let us examine the record of the past 10 years. The first Secretary of State, then Mr. Mark Carlisle, was a well-intentioned wet who tried but failed to save education from the first and most savage round of cuts in 1980–81. He was

followed by Sir Keith Joseph, sincere, indecisive to the point of paralysis, whose inability to produce a settlement of the two-year teacher dispute and whose failure to secure resources for the system tested our education service almost to the point of destruction.
It is perhaps as well to remember that the new chairman of the Conservative party was put in to repair the havoc wrought by Sir Keith, but he left the service in an even worse state than that in which he found it. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is the master of the gimmick and the quick fix—the "here today, I'm off tomorrow" approach to policy. The man who landed the Government with the poll tax and the student loans scheme was also the architect of the lethal combination of city technology colleges, opting out, the local management of schools, an inflexible national curriculum, and the constant denigration of the teaching profession which has brought the service so low.

Mr. John Maples: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a moment.
In 10 years, the proportion of national wealth devoted to education and training has fallen. Except in Labour areas, far fewer children in England receive the benefit of a nursery education than in our European competitor countries.
Perhaps the greatest test of any system is the proportion of young people who complete their compulsory school education with recognised qualifications and stay on beyond 16 in full-time education or high-quality training. On that test, the Government's record over the past decade is a national disgrace. The life chances of half a generation have been wasted. Fewer young people stay on after 16 than in any of our major competitor countries.
Moreover, the proportion staying on after 16 in full-time education has, as statistics from the Department of Education and Science show, barely moved—from 33 to 35 per cent.—despite a rapid decline in the size of the age group, which should have led to a dramatic improvement in opportunities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is talking about spending. Will he explain why yet again, the Inner London education authority spent the most on secondary school pupils but came 88th in the examination league? Before he says that it is because of the composition of London, will he explain why Wigan, which spent £1,000 less per pupil, came 15th in the examination league?

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer.

Mr. Straw: Yes, the hon. Gentleman should know the answer. The figures that he gave distort relative examination performance. As the Department's statistical bulletin makes clear, when an adjustment is made for the social input and intake of children in ILEA, it comes not 88th but 46th in the league. The hon. Gentleman should know that the costs of services in inner London are much higher than outside. Proportionately, it costs less to run ILEA than the social services department of the Conservative-controlled City of Westminster, and much less than running the Government-controlled Metropolitan police.
I return to the Government's lamentable record on 16 to 19-year-olds. The excellent report, "Towards the Skills Revolution", from the Confederation of British Industry, says:
Britain has one of the lowest rates of participation in post compulsory education and training of all
western
countries, producing a much smaller number of school leavers educated to the standard required of a modern economy … Even in the newly industrialised nations in the Pacific Basin, far more people remain in education and training after the end of compulsory schools
than in Britain.
Other countries have clearly established targets to raise standards and participation. South Korea proposes, within a decade, to get 80 per cent. of its young people to university entrance standard. The Socialist Government of France say that 75 per cent. should achieve university entrance standard. Labour has proposed the setting of similar targets for Britain—the doubling of participation for those aged between 16 and 19 within a decade, with clear machinery for ensuring that locally realistic targets are set and funded.
After 10 years in office, where is the Government's programme for extending participation for those aged between 16 and 19, and where are their targets for that age group? They have none. The one reform that the Government could have implemented at little extra cost—the broadening of the 16-to-18 curriculum with a five-subject A-level, as recommended by the Higginson committee—was vetoed last year by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Harry Greenway: How quickly does the hon. Gentleman think that the numbers participating in higher education could be doubled? As he is asking for more resources, will he say why Ealing council has cut its education budget by £2·5 million but increased its rates by 32 per cent.?

Mr. Straw: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of Labour's policy review and a copy of "Children First", which sets out Labour's policy in detail. Ealing is in the same position as every other local education authority: the Government have imposed completely unrealistic targets on it which, if it meets them, will result in the closure of classrooms and the sacking of teachers.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, this is supposed to be a short debate and I have given way five times. There is lots of talk from this Secretary of State and his partner, the Secretary of State for Employment, about the need to improve education and training between 16 and 19, but precious little action, because this Secretary of State knows, as a former Treasury man, that if there is to be improvement in education there must be investment in it, and that is the one thing that the Government have resolutely refused to do.
In the past 10 years, the Government have deliberately cut their investment from the centre in the running and in the building of schools. In 1979, Government funded £6 of every £10 spent by local authorities; today, they fund only £4·50 of every £10. The Government have cut their investment in the running of schools by over 25 per cent. in real terms, and the modest improvement in total spend

is entirely accounted for by local authorities and ratepayers who, year by year, have had to spend in advance of Government guidelines just to maintain a half-decent service. So underfunded is the service that in many parts of the country parents are forced to raise thousands of pounds to pay for essential books and equipment, but where the parents of a school do not have that kind of money, their children go without.
At Rottingdean school in Brighton, children are now to be charged £9 each for the use of a school locker.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What has that to do with education?

Mr. Straw: If that has nothing to do with education, perhaps Government Members and the Secretary of State will tell me whether the arrangements for charging at the Bligh county infants' school in Kent, a state school, have nothing to do with education. This county primary school has made arrangements, as schools up and down the country do, to admit children who are rising five, those whose birthday falls in the summer term. They have done so especially this year because of anxiety among parents that, unless their children are now admitted, they will miss out on the nine terms of education that other children will receive before the national curriculum tests at the age of seven.
The parents of the 25 children rising five who were admitted at the start of this term are being charged £11 a week for tuition fees—this is in a state school.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Why not?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asks why not. I will tell him. One, it is almost certainly illegal; two, if it is not illegal it is in breach of very clear commitments from the Treasury Front Bench.

Mr. Bob Dunn: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way on this issue to the Secretary of State and no other.
I spent this morning checking whether the report in the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham News was correct. I spoke to the headmistress and to the reporter of the story, and my office spoke to the divisional education officer. The story is correct in every particular. Kent county council now says that it is not a class for rising-fives but a pre-school playgroup. We asked the divisional director of education whether, if it was a playgroup, playgroup leaders were in charge of the class. We were told that it was a trained teacher on the roll of the infants' school. We asked whether the children were playing or learning. We were told that they were not playing, that they were learning. We asked who was paying the teachers. The county council is paying the teachers, we were told, but the parents are paying the county council. It is schooling, not a pre-school playgroup.
I now offer the Secretary of State a chance to intervene. Will he promise to investigate, under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, whether Kent county council's actions are lawful, reasonable and consistent with Government policy or whether this is, as we believe, the start of fee-paying in state education? The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to speak.

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Straw: I give way.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has finally given way. I know that he likes to take these matters seriously, because I believe that he wishes to be remembered for that. He must understand, however, that the quality and range of education in the county of Kent are supported by the people of Kent. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, the range, variety and concept of schools in the county of Kent would not exist for five minutes under a Labour Government.

Mr. Straw: I have no idea why I accepted my hon. Friends' invitation to show my usual generosity and give way to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). He did not answer the point; nor did the Secretary of State, and his silence is revealing.
One of the schools governors, the Rev. Steve Wallis said that the school had to charge parents for what their children would receive in any other educational authority because
Kent Education Committee refused to fund such classes".
That is shameful and outrageous, and the Secretary of State should condemn it.
Current spending by central Government has been cut; so has capital spending, which is down 25 per cent. in real terms in 10 years. The Secretary of State will not give the figures since 1979, but even since 1981—a year of cuts—there has been a catastrophic cut in the amount invested in the nation's schools. As Labour's campaign has highlighted, we have a nation of crumbling schools and schools with leaking roofs, rotting windows, classrooms that have not been redecorated for years and classes housed in split sites, prefabricated buildings and buildings that are way past their useful life.
This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) told me that in his constituency, at the Birmingham Padget junior school in Pipeboys, the ceiling of one of the classrooms had collapsed yesterday evening. If that had happened during school hours, many children would have been injured.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The problem was worse than that. A ceiling in a corridor collapsed. For two years, school staff, parents, the council and I have been trying to get money to get the roof repaired. The city council has said that it has a growing backlog and inadequate funds. This puts children at risk.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that detail. Birmingham has not been able to repair that classroom because it has not received the requested capital allocations from the Government. This year, capital allocations for England are just 64 per cent. of the 1981 level. Next year, despite all the bally-hoo from the Secretary of State, they will be £67 million less than in 1981. They are wholly inadequate to make up for the neglect of a decade.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has my hon. Friend seen the school magazine "In Our Own Words"? The magazine was originally produced in Warrington, has become a national magazine and is about to go international. It is designed and edited by children, and all the contributions are by children. The magazine has been supported by Cheshire council and received substantial

grants from the council. When it applied for a tiny amount of money centrally, because it was now a national production, the request was refused. Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. If Cheshire county council spent at the target set for it by the Government, the teachers who are running that excellent project would have to be fired.
Throughout the country, desperately needed repairs and improvements have been delayed yet again by the Government's failure properly to meet local authorities' capital requirements. St. John's and St. Clement's Church of England primary school in East Dulwich is on two sites, one a converted church hall. Children have to walk back and forward across a busy main road. Its rebuilding is at the top of the diocesan list for Southwark, but it has been vetoed yet again by the Secretary of State.
In Bradford, the Buttershaw first school had three temporary classrooms which could not be used, so children had to be bussed four miles across the city to watertight premises. At last the city council has said that it will replace the classrooms, but I understand that they are being replaced not by permanent classrooms but by further temporary classrooms.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are now 600 temporary classrooms in Bradford, many of which have been temporary for so long that they themselves are falling down, as were the classrooms at Buttershaw, and that even Tory-controlled Bradford has been denied about £20 million when it asked for £30 million capital expenditure to improve the shanty town and crumbling Bradford schools? The Tory Government cut the amount to below £10 million.

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. My hon. Friends who represent Bradford have run a brilliant campaign to draw attention to the state of the city's schools. There is scarcely a city with schools in a worse state. The conclusion we draw is that that is directly related to the fact that there is a Conservative council in charge.
While Britain's county schools are starved of cash, the Government continue their support for city technology colleges. No programme has been such a comprehensive and expensive failure. Twenty were promised by last month; we have three. Most of the money was supposed to come from business. Instead it has come in the main from the taxpayer. Nearly every blue chip company has boycotted the programme. What support there is has come from the sleazy, the failing and the second-rate—from American car auctioneers, ADT Securities; from the nearly-bust Lowndes Queensway; from the bid victim Dixon's.
The Secretary of State knows that the scheme is a failure. He has already limited CTCs to 20 in total, and has described the original programme of his predecessor as over-ambitious. He knows that the policy is wasteful and wrong, so why does he not scrap it altogether and immediately save £120 million, which could be spent on a crash programme of repairs and improvements, as we have demanded?

Mr. Alistair Burt: Apart from the fact that parents are queuing up to send their children to CTCs, will the hon. Gentleman explain why teachers prefer to move from the state sector to work in city technology colleges?

Mr. Straw: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not understand why. If as is happening in Nottingham, more is spent on a single school, than the Government have allowed Nottinghamshire county council to spend on over 450 schools in its area, if money is lavished on school buildings and if the teachers are paid more, of course many parents will apply for their children to join that school and many teachers will prefer to work there. That does not make the policy right. It exposes the hypocrisy and double dealing of the Government in regard to the majority of children.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the capital allocation to the city technology college in Gateshead is larger than the amount available for all the other schools in Sunderland this year?

Mr. Straw: Is it any wonder, therefore, that the rest of the schools in Sunderland face such difficulty?

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept that the nonsense talked by Tory Members conveys the impression that teachers go along with the policy? The reality is that teachers in Nottingham are outraged because so much money is being spent on one school and a handful of teachers. Does my hon. Friend accept that other children and parents are angry at what is happening? [Interruption.] Tory Members all know that that is true.

Mr. Straw: I am aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Investment in education has been cut by central Government and the system has been overloaded almost beyond endurance by ill-considered, divisive, meretricious initiatives.
We warned two years ago that the Government's national curriculum was far too inflexible, much more a state syllabus, and that schools could not operate it in full and meet the other educational and social needs of their children. So it is turning out. The national curriculum is imploding under its contradictions. The testing arrangements are obscure, but potentially a nightmare, especially at seven and at 16, when Ministers have yet to explain how GCSE and national curriculum testing will fit together.
The Prime Minister is trying to make the history syllabus a partisan instrument. Schools are weighed down with paper. Local management of schools could have resulted in sensible delegation of some local education authority cash and functions. Instead, it is forcing many schools to choose between teachers and books, posing them impossible choices and putting schools under a financial incentive to dispose of experienced teachers and to employ the cheapest and the youngest.
There are more than 1·25 million surplus school places, wasting £240 million in premises costs alone. However, the responsibility for the lack of progress in removing those places lies with the Secretary of State. Opting out has scarcely been a success, but the possibility of opting out has paralysed the prospects for sensible schools reorganisation in many parts of the country, especially as Ministers have allowed schools to opt out to escape closure or reorganisation.
Given all that, is it any wonder that the morale of the teaching profession
is lower than it has been for fifty years, that teachers feel unappreciated, that the Government reforms … have certainly not treated teachers as professionals"?

Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), a former Conservative Education Minister, at a speech to the constituency Conservative association of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, last weekend.
The right hon. Member for Brent, North was right to say that the blame for the collapse in morale lies firmly on Ministers. The Secretary of State may comprehend that he is reaping the whirlwind for the way that his predecessor treated teachers as the whipping boys of society. However, he has yet to acknowledge the scale of the problem over which he is presiding, rather than repeatedly making light of it.
Britain has been short of properly trained permanent teachers throughout the mid and late 1980s. However, a bad position is now becoming much worse. The percentage of teachers qualified in the subject that they are teaching actually dropped between 1984 and 1988. The percentage of graduates entering teaching halved during the 1980s. Half of those who train to teach are not in teaching after five years; some may later return, but there are as many people with teacher qualifications not teaching as there are teaching.
Today, thousands of our best and brightest teachers are getting out, either to other jobs, to no jobs, to go abroad or to retire early. Yet again, the Secretary of State will no doubt trot out his claim that only 1 per cent. of teachers—around 4,000—have been leaving teaching for other jobs. He knows that that figure grossly understates the real wastage in the profession. The report of Professor Alan Smithers, of Manchester university, states that, if one strips out those changing teaching posts and those reaching normal retirement age,
we arrive at a provisional departure rate of 4·9 per cent.
That is nearly 20,000 teachers—not 4,000—for 1989. He said:
This … is likely to be an under-estimate, but it is nevertheless five times the aspect of wastage commonly referred to by Government Ministers".
The Secretary of State will also claim that the acute problem is confined to inner London. As Ministers have acknowledged, all London Labour boroughs have worked with a will to make the transfer of education responsibilities to them as smooth as possible. However, as I said earlier, there is no question but that the gratuitous abolition of ILEA has greatly contributed to the problem of recruiting new teachers in inner London. Despite the problems that inner London boroughs' now face, Ministers have yet to respond to the joint Labour and Conservative boroughs, initiative on housing, which was sent to them two months ago.
The figures for the country as a whole show a slow but steady worsening of shortages outside London, and across the country, with one head teacher and LEA after another reporting more and more difficulty in recruiting candidates of adequate quality.
If the Secretary of State denies that, let him answer three questions. First, can he guarantee that no child will be without a properly qualified permanent teacher in his or her class this year, next year or the year after? Or is he willing to give that guarantee only in respect of children who go to private schools?
Secondly, if there has been no change in the situation, why has advertising of teacher appointments in The Times Educational Supplement increased by nearly 60 per cent. in two years?
Thirdly, if there is no problem outside London, why did the schools sub-committee of his own, Tory-controlled Norfolk county council have on its agenda on 6 December last year, for the first time in its history, an item dealing with teacher shortages? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the report in the Eastern Daily Press, which said:
Nearly one in five Norfolk secondary school teachers are expected to leave their posts this year, new figures have revealed. The number of primary school teacher resignations has also soared"?
If there is no problem outside London, where do those stories come from? I am prepared to give way to the Secretary of State if he has an answer.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said in the House on 5 December:
if we are beginning to have problems in Norfolk, whatever must it be like in other parts of the country?
The hon. Gentleman continued:
It is no good
the Secretary of State
pretending that the problem does not exist. It is no use pretending that, while money will not solve everything, we can expect a highly motivated teaching profession if we do not reward teachers accordingly."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 286.]
But teachers will not be rewarded accordingly by this Secretary of State. This Government's stock in trade is pretence.
The Secretary of State will tell us that teachers' pay has risen by 40 per cent. since 1986. So it has, but the right hon. Gentleman omits to tell us that, before 1986, teachers' pay had fallen grievously behind. A comparison of teachers' pay in 1979 and teachers' pay today shows that it is £1,000 less today that it would have been had it simply kept pace with increases in non-manual earnings over that period.
The Secretary of State has cash-limited the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and Conditions to £600 million, to give teachers an increase lower than the rate of inflation. When he fixed the cash limit in September, the Secretary of State wrote to the Chilver committee that inflation
will continue to decline further in the months ahead".
In fact, inflation has risen. What allowance will the Secretary of State make for that? Does he not understand that, if the cash limit is not lifted, teachers will not be properly rewarded, and that if they are not properly rewarded, they cannot be retained?
How will local authorities be able to keep the teachers they have if they observe the Government's poll tax spending targets? The Government's poll tax spending targets mean that education authorities across the country—Tory as well as Labour—will have to cut their budgets by more than 3·5 per cent. Let the Secretary of State say, now or in his speech, how many teachers will have to be fired and how many classrooms closed if those targets are met.

Mr. Andy Stewart: None.

Mr. Straw: The Minister's PPS says, "None." Does the Minister himself say, "None"? Does he deny the claims made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Association of District Councils? The simple truth is that there is not a local authority in the

country that could meet the standard spending assessments for education and other services without having to cut the number of teachers that it now employs.
In an orgy of self-congratulation, the Government's amendment refers to the "coherence" of their programme. I hope that, in his heart, the Secretary of State does not believe such nonsense. Certainly no one else does. As the Government's so-called coherent programme of reforms has been introduced, so public support for their policies has evaporated. That is why Conservative newspapers such as the Sun, the News of the World and The Mail on Sunday have severely criticised the Government's education record since Labour launched its "crumbling schools and teacher shortage" campaign.
In contrast to the Government, we promise no wasteful, divisive gimmicks such as CTCs, assisted places and opting out. We have already spelt out and published a comprehensive programme for schools and teachers. We propose the setting of clear targets for staying-on rates, the establishment of an educational standards council, the reform of teacher training, the establishment of teacher training schools and a general teachers' council. We shall secure effective support for new teachers, a proper database for the teacher labour force and a career structure for teachers' assistants, make major modifications of the national curriculum and introduce local management of schools and a crash programme of repairs.
Above all, we promise a Labour Government committed to state education, investing in it and using it, and because the public increasingly—

Mr. George Walden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for nearly 40 minutes. That means that it will take well over an hour to launch a three-hour debate. There are many wise heads on both sides of the House, particularly on the Conservative Benches, and I wonder whether they could be given some consideration by the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I repeat what Mr. Speaker said at the beginning: this is a short debate and I hope that all hon. Members will keep an eye on the clock.

Mr. Straw: This debate was called by the Labour party. I had hoped to make a shorter speech, but the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will find in tomorrow's Hansard that at least 12 minutes, if not 15 minutes, of my speech were taken up in dealing with interventions from Conservative Members.
The public increasingly back Labour's constructive alternative proposals, and public support for our educational policies is rising sharply. At the general election, the Conservatives and Labour were level on the question of which party had the best education policy, but Labour now has a 20 per cent. lead.
If, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North said, teacher morale has never been lower in 50 years, there is a reason for that; the reason is that, in 50 years, we have never had a Government who have treated teachers and children so casually, and who have so obstinately refused to invest in the nation's future. It is time for the Secretary of State to wake up to the crisis in education that is all around him. This Government's schools policy has failed, and I commend the motion to the House.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its coherent programme for securing lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the National Curriculum, assessment and testing, for increased parental choice, and for greater autonomy for schools; notes the increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil; contrasts these reforms with the neglect of relevant education policies by the last Labour Government and the absence of any constructive alternative proposals by Opposition spokesmen; notes that the requirements of the National Curriculum, building on the successful introduction of GCSE examinations, enjoy widespread support in the education system; and welcomes the enthusiasm with which governors, teachers and parents are seizing the opportunity to exercise more choice and greater autonomy in the management of their schools.
The Education Reform Act 1988 represents the culmination of a decade of work by this Government to create the conditions and framework to secure real and lasting improvements in our schools. The reform programme has been based on what needs to be done to raise standards. I have been quite clear throughout my period as Secretary of State that we need to raise standards substantially, and I am determined to do that.
Parents, employers and the public at large recognize that we must take a number of steps. We must define more clearly national objectives for what is taught in order to raise the expectations and achievements of pupils and teachers. We must guarantee a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils and improve the relevance of that curriculum to adult life and the world of work. We must improve the quality, standards and range of subjects taught for pupils of all levels of ability to match what is being provided by some of the best of our main competitor countries. I regard that as vital for our economic success in the 1990s. We must foster greater choice for parents, greater variety at local level, more control over their own budgets for schools, more responsibility for governing bodies, and greater involvement of local business people and parents in them.
Much has already been achieved in all those matters. It was clear from the dismissal by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of the national curriculum that he simply does not understand what the reforms are already achieving. Let me remind the House of a decade of action under this Government, in contrast to years of drifting under Labour.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to be brief. The hon. Member for Blackburn complained that his speech had been lengthened by responses to interventions, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way once.

Mr. Haynes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if people have a choice and can go to a CTC, they should not expect to use the facilities of their local education authority? That is what people in Nottinghamshire think anyway.

Mr. MacGregor: Many people in Nottingham think it wrong that children going to a CTC—I shall have more to say about CTCs later—should be deprived of extracurricular activities for which their parents have paid through the rates. That is the wrong kind of discrimination.
I shall contrast the decade of activity under the Conservatives with what went before. Labour Members talked about examination reform. We acted. The introduction of the GCSE has already seen substantial improvements in teaching and learning; it was noticeable that the hon. Member for Blackburn did not refer to those.
Attainments have improved significantly. The proportion of candidates getting grades A to C has increased in just two years by about 15 per cent. The number of pupils staying on after the age of 16 rose in 1988 by about 10 per cent., the biggest single increase ever. That shows what our reforms are achieving. The available evidence suggests another substantial increase in 1989.
Her Majesty's inspectors report that those improvements, which are helping to motivate more children to positive achievement, are already beginning to improve the curriculum in the early years of secondary education. That is success, not failure.
We acted to introduce greater relevance and technical applications into the curriculum through the technical and vocational education initiative, known as TVEI. That programme is being supported by over £1 billion of new investment during the 14 years from 1983 to 1997. Every local education authority in the country is involved in TVEI. That is success, not failure.
We acted to put the Education Act 1981 on the statute book, ensuring a new deal for all pupils with special education needs. We acted to create 35,000 places in successful independent schools for bright pupils through the assisted places scheme, after the wanton destruction of the direct grant schools.
The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about greater achievement and attainment. The achievement of those pupils tells its own story. Over 90 per cent. of assisted places pupils last year gained grades A to C at GCSE, 86 per cent. gained grades A to E at A level and 70 per cent. of last year's assisted place leavers went on to higher education. That is success, not failure.
With schools now being able to manage much of their own budgets, we are now building on earlier legislation in 1980 and 1986 to give them greater freedom to take their own decisions. There are now thousands of new governors in our schools, representing a huge injection of new support from the community and from parents. Already, 83 schemes of local management have been approved in principle. From April, the great majority of LEAs will be introducing their schemes of financial delegation and formula funding.
There is widespread support for the principles of local management, and we shall be working with LEAs to ensure its success. That is why the Government are supporting a programme of over 100 million to assist schools in managing their budgets, through installing information technology systems and through training governors and staff. That is important reform for achieving success, not failure.
We have acted to improve and increase the availability and quality of in-service training for teachers. In the last three years we have supported a programme of £600 million for in-service training through specific grant for


both national and local priorities. I remember the priority that the last Labour government gave to in-service training for teachers. No wonder we heard nothing about that from the hon. Member for Blackburn.
At the same time, we have reformed and sharpened the focus of initial training through the work of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Contrast that with the wringing of hands by former Labour Secretaries of State, which was all that passed for action on that count under the last Labour Government.
We will have substantially increased spending per pupil—up by 42 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. That is success. That compares with a cut of about 2 per cent. in the last five years of Labour government—that was failure.
Capital spending per pupil has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms over the same period, compared with the slashing of the school building programme under the last Labour Government because of the total failure of their economic policies.
I clearly remember how the school building programme was savagely cut under the last Labour Government because they went for over-ambitious spending targets in the first year or two, did much to destroy our economy, had to go to the IMF to he bailed out, and then we saw slashed capital building programmes for the three years thereafter. We had to pick up the problem from that point and make the improvements that we are now achieving.

Dr. Hampson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the only time since the war when the proportion of young people going on to higher education fell was under the last Labour Government, due to the dramatic cuts that they made in education provision.
In view of the complaints that Labour Members now make about the fall in GDP, their attention should be drawn to the fact that the latest OECD figures show the proportion of GDP in this country well ahead of Germany, only slightly behind—by 0·01 per cent.—that of Japan, and the same as in the United States.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right on both points. The illustrations that I have given and his point about higher education demonstrate how much hypocrisy there was in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way again.
In short, while Labour dithered in the past, and still cannot make up their minds on how to improve quality, we have acted. Where they failed on educational expenditure, we have succeeded, as a result of the economic expansion that we achieved in the 1980s, in considerably increasing the resources devoted per pupil throughout the education system.

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman is so proud of the amount being spent on education, may I ask him to comment on the policy of Kent county council, which is short of money and is charging rising-fives £11 a week for education? Does he approve of that policy?

Mr. MacGregor: I have a relevant part in my speech in which I shall reply precisely to that question—[Interruption.] It will fit into the context better if I deal with it then.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way again, having taken careful note of what Mr. Deputy Speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said a few moments ago.
I refute the charges of the hon. Member for Blackburn. and point to the considerable progress achieved on all fronts in the 1980s. We are on the right track. But of course—I accept this and have always said it—we still have a long way to go if we are to achieve the competitive, high-quality standards and performance that we require for the 1990s.
That is why we introduced the national curriculum and the many other measures contained in the Education Reform Act, the biggest reforms since 1944. I find it amazing that the hon. Member for Blackburn is so dismissive of the national curriculum and those reforms. We are pressing forward at speed with the national curriculum programme. It is a major challenge for everyone involved in education, and one we should all relish and welcome.
I suspect that secretly the hon. Member for Blackburn knows that that is right, but of course he cannot bring himself to give open support to the reforms carried through in that Act and in the national curriculum. There is widespread support and acceptance by teachers of the benefits which nationally agreed attainment targets and programmes of study are bringing to teaching and learning in schools.
The national curriculum is bringing new and welcome rigour to the curriculum planning of primary schools. I have made it clear in speeches at conferences where I have addressed members of independent schools that I hope that all independent schools will take up the national curriculum. As we get success with it, I believe that they will, because there will be a demand from parents that they do so, and the teachers will wish to respond. Clearer objectives and a supportive framework of what should be taught is bringing new life to the curriculum throughout our schools.
The fact that there is much enthusiasm for our approach is shown by the demands that I am now getting for the other subject areas to be brought fully and effectively within the national curriculum as soon as possible. Of course, there is lively debate about what they contain, and that is all to the good. I hope to publish the final report of the history group next month, geography and modern languages will follow in the summer, and. I shall be making an announcement soon on music, art and PE.
There is widespread support, too, for the national curriculum to be underpinned by effective testing and assessment arrangements. In a survey of parental attitudes conducted by independent analysts last year, over three quarters of parents expressed support for regular testing and regular reporting of the results.
That is the Government's policy. Under the national curriculum, pupils will be assessed against clear national standards at seven, 11, 14 and 16. For the first time, parents will have reliable reports, throughout the country and at all those stages, about their children's progress, and teachers will have the information they need to tailor their teaching to the strengths and weaknesses of individual pupils.
National assessment is well on the way to becoming a reality. Prototypes of the first national tests are under development and are being tried out in schools. The first national assessments of seven-year-olds in mathematics, English and science will be in 1991. Other foundation subjects and key stages will follow in subsequent years.
I have dwelt on that issue, because I believe that the national curriculum is a fundamental reform. When historians look back, this will be seen as a time of enormous change and improvement. That is why it is right to underline the importance of the national curriculum. We are devoting an enormous amount of resources, time and effort to ensuring that the national curriculum works. We are getting on with that constructively, with massive effort and with vigour, with the aim of raising standards and improving quality and relevance. Typically, the speech made by the hon. Member for Blackburn contained scarcely any recognition of that.
I want now to consider the Government's policies for extending real choice for parents, something that the Labour party does not really understand or believe in. We have abolished artificial limits on the places available in popular schools and parents are already benefiting this year, where places have been freed in secondary schools. We have required every local education authority to set up local arrangements for handling complaints which offer parents a readily accessible local route for pursuing complaints.
When schools have control of their own budgets—as so many shortly will—those which attract more parents, and hence pupils, will also attract more funds. That is a key principle of the formula under the local management of schools for distributing budgets. We have introduced a new and flourishing grant-maintained school sector. There are now 20 grant-maintained schools in operation, and a further 12 have been approved to start later this year. The new sector is growing rapidly. Already, the number of grant-maintained schools is about the same as the number of schools in an average local education authority—and they started only in September.
I want to spend a moment or two on that aspect of our reforms, because I believe that the benefits of and the potential for grant-maintained schools have been much underrated. Typically, the hon. Member for Blackburn dismissed those schools as a gimmick; that shows that he does not understand. Of course some local education authorities and their officials, in a narrow and blinkered way, oppose grant-maintained schools, because they are dedicated to uniformity and bureaucratic control. At heart, I suspect that some of them dislike giving the governors, teachers and parents real choice. I suspect that is what the hon. Member for Blackburn does not like about them. Some LEAs may be tempted to squeeze them out, but I hope that they will think again, as was shown in relation to CTCs.
Grant-maintained schools are popular with parents and successful with teachers. So far, there have been ballots at 78 schools on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. Even though the first grant-maintained schools have had their greater independence for only a short time, there has been a marked increased in the number of applicants for places.
Many schools have yet to complete their admissions procedures for entry in September 1990, but responses from parents greatly exceed the overall number of places available. For example, at Wilson's school in Wallington, there have been more than 470 applications for 120 places. That shows that we are extending parent power and parent choice and the results are clear.
The success of the first grant-maintained schools shows that parents have been quick to utilise their rights and choose the autonomy that grant-maintained autonomy brings. Moreover—this is very important—on my visits to grant-maintained schools I have seen the obvious dedication and enthusiasm of governors and staff for their new status. Many of them talk of the motivating effect that such status has had on them. Their hard work and commitment is proving a sure foundation for the new sector.
We are also widening parental choice by pressing ahead with our programme of city technology colleges. Three colleges are now open—only three years after the start of the programme. Yesterday I announced that Derby is to have a CTC, opening in 1991, and only last week I was able to confirm that the parents and children of Corby would soon be able to opt for this new and exciting choice of secondary education.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No.

Mr. Straw: Oh, go on.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Blackburn admitted that his speech was too long because he had to give way; I will bear that in mind.
Parents are voting with their feet for places in the CTCs because they want their children to benefit from the vigour and innovation which characterises CTCs. They will pioneer new approaches to classroom practice, timetables, even the working day. They will develop new approaches to the curriculum, and show the way on co-operation and collaboration between business and industry and education. The CTCs are doing this just where it is most needed—in our cities and towns where, for years, the outlook for young people has been bleakest.
I want to put the expenditure into context, because the hon. Member for Blackburn always touches on peripheral points. We expect local authorities to spend about £11 billion on the maintained sector of schools under current spending. We expect CTCs to spend £14 million.
I want to see the benefits of CTCs as they develop spread more widely. That is one of the purposes of this innovative and creative idea. I want to build on the enthusiasm and commitment of business and industry which the CTC programme has already unlocked. That is why I heard with interest the proposal from the London borough of Wandsworth last week for a voluntary-aided CTC as a way of bringing what CTCs have to offer right into the maintained sector. I shall be looking carefully at all the issues involved.
Of course the proportion of spending on CTCs will rise as they expand. However, the proportion of spending on CTCs is still tiny in relation to spending on the total maintained sector. The whole of the education system and


the inner-city area programme will receive benefits and a high rate of return from that comparatively modest investment.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to teacher shortages. He continues to show an unenviable capacity for misunderstanding—or perhaps he just prefers blatantly to misrepresent the facts. I am glad that, in reply to my repeated invitations, he has now accepted my offer of discussions with my Department's officials about the available statistics. I want a completely open debate about the statistics, and it would be at least an advance if we could have better informed speeches from the hon. Gentleman in future.
I have said many times—I repeat it again today—that there are some serious problems of teacher supply. However, no purpose is served by misrepresenting them. The hon. Member for Blackburn is always highly selective in his choice of statistics and examples. Therefore, I want to state the overall position.
There is no evidence that teacher shortages are dramatically worse than in previous years or that we are facing a nationwide crisis. All three measures of teacher supply bear that out.

Mr. Flannery: Rubbish.

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of hearing the three points.
First, vacancies are running at the same rate as when the Labour party left office in 1979. Secondly, teacher resignations and wastage have stayed within a narrow band for many years; that is confirmed by research by Manchester university. Finally, recruitment to initial teacher training is running at levels unmatched in recent years. Teaching is clearly a popular profession, and rightly so. It offers a worthwhile career to young people. There has never been a better time to become a teacher; that is reflected in the increasing number of people queueing up to do so.
I want now to refer to morale and teacher status. Those who point to the worst examples as being typical of what is happening in schools actually discourage people from entering the profession. That is one factor that has diminished teachers in the eyes of the public and that is a great shame for the vast majority of highly dedicated and professional teachers who do so much. We should now be positive to deal with problems of morale and stress.
As for teacher shortages, I have always recognised that there are clearly problems within the overall picture, and I have frequently highlighted two problems. First, teacher recruitment is suffering from exactly the same problems as some other occupations in London and other high-cost areas, where housing—and the environment in which some of the schools have to operate—are particular issues. Secondly, there are certain key subjects—physics, chemistry, modern languages and maths, for example—for which schools may find it difficult to recruit. County education authorities such as mine are now addressing those problems.
But it is not just teaching that cannot get enough recruits in those subjects. They are the very same areas of expertise in which industry complains of recruitment problems. They are also, of course, the skills which are now in particularly high demand.
There has been, and is, a long-term problem here which we as a Government have been trying to address—the fact

that, compared with the countries with which we most have to compete, not enough of our young people have been taking up these subjects. This is now exacerbated by the demographic downturn—the much lower number of school leavers up to 1996—on the one hand, and by the ever-increasing demand in a technological age and with the single European market looming for them, on the other. In the long term, one of the many benefits of the national curriculum is that it should greatly increase the enthusiasm among, and hence the numbers of, young people with such qualifications.
But that long-term solution will not provide an answer, so in the short term we are taking action which is targeted directly on these clearly identified issues. We have spent over £50 million since July 1986 on measures to address them, and these are continuing. They include bursaries for trainee teachers in physics, mathematics, technology and chemistry. They include the remit that I have given to the interim advisory committee for its recommendations for the coming year's salary settlement for teachers.I have specifically asked it to address these two areas of concern, with special reference to further use of incentive allowances. As the House knows, I have asked the interim advisory committee to report to me by the end of this month. With its report imminent, I clearly cannot say any more today about that matter.

Mr. Straw: When the Secretary of State sent his letter to Lord Chilver on 26 September, he said that inflation would fall further in the months ahead. In fact, it has risen. Is the Secretary of State going to take that into account in raising the cash limit.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that the cash limit is a remit to the interim advisory committee. I do not want to say any more about what the committee might recommend to me. Clearly that is a matter for the committee, whose report I shall receive within the next few days—certainly by the end of the month, the time by which we asked it to report.
Let me turn to the other short-term measures. In-service training for conversion and updating of shortage-subject teachers is one. We have also commissioned open learning materials for the in-service training of teachers in these subjects. Through our new education support grant, which I announced last week—£2 million has been given in the first year, and with more to follow as total expenditure for this particular area—we are supporting local education authorities through the education support grant, particularly in areas of recruitment difficulty, to develop programmes for recruiting former teachers. This is an area that I regard as a major priority, and one in which there is tremendous potential. I have given a clear indication that, if good progress is made, I should like to see rather more of the education support grant concentrated on this aspect when we come to look at the priorities for next year.
Included also in the short-term programme is a publicity and advertising campaign, spearheaded by the teaching as a career unit. In addition, we are encouraging mature people to come into teaching, often after working in other careers. We have run a highly successful series of taster courses aimed at encouraging mature people to come into teaching, as we will be expanding thus programme next year. The licensed teacher route will provide an important source of teachers in the future.
This is a coherent and consistent programme of measures, and I will add to them as necessary. They are focused; they are targeted; above all, they are positive. They recognise that there are issues seriously to be addressed. That is in marked contrast to the contributions of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I re-read his speeches in the previous two debates on this question in the summer. Then, and now, he has failed to make a single constructive proposal. [Interruption.] I will come in a moment to the package that he raised at the end. When his criticisms are matched by complete absence of analysis and no positive ideas, then the House is entitled to dismiss them as empty rhetoric.
Let me turn now to resources. This Government have not merely set the policy agenda—acting where others have talked. We have also backed up our policies with resources. Look at the trend in spending per pupil. In 1979–80, about £515 was being spent on each pupil in nursery, primary and secondary schools. By 1988–89, that figure had risen to about £1,365 per pupil.

Mr. Straw: What about inflation?

Mr. MacGregor: I will come to the point about inflation.
That is a cash-terms increase of no less than 165 per cent. The real-terms increase, which is the one on which we ought to focus, is also impressive. In each and every year between 1979–80 and 1988–89, there has been a real-terms increase in spending per pupil. Overall, during that period, real-terms spending per pupil rose by 42 per cent.
Part of this increase is due to the improvements in staffing under this Government. As we all know, of course, teachers are much the biggest item of expenditure in school budgets, accounting for around half of all spending by local education authorities. As the House knows, there has been a steady improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. In 1979–80, there was one teacher for every 19 pupils in primary and secondary schools; by 1987–88 that ratio had improved to one teacher for every 17 pupils.
I shall come now to the point that the hon. Member for Blackburn has been raising. He talked about the under-fives. Of course it is not possible to achieve everything at once. The great fault of the Labour party has been its promises to everybody that it is going to achieve everything at once. Unfortunately, quite a number of people will not remember just how very badly it did last time in that respect.
Having said that, I want to consider what has been achieved in respect of participation rates in education among the under-fives. That has shown an upward trend—rising from 39 per cent. in 1979–80, to 45 per cent. in 1987–88. This expansion has been funded by a substantial increase in spending on the under-fives—by about 45 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
Here I come to the point about Bligh primary school that the hon. Gentleman raised. I too have had this matter looked into this morning. I understand that a pre-school playgroup has been set up in the premises of Bligh primary school. Children are admitted to this group on payment of a fee. The children attending the group are not of statutory school age and are not on the school's roll. The group is

funded, managed and taught separately from the main school, and the group is charged for the use that it makes of the primary school's accommodation.
Such arrangements are not uncommon or illegal. As there are always priorities for individual education authorities—they cannot achieve all that they would wish—we should commend the initiative of parents who undertake this kind of project.

Mr. Straw: This is a very important issue, so I am glad that the Secretary of State has given way. The truth is that the pre-school playgroup arrangement is a simple device or trick to circumvent the law against charging fees. The Secretary of State must agree to investigate what Kent county council has done. This is not a playgroup. Does the Secretary of State not understand that the teachers, who are teaching these children part of the national curriculum—not simply to play—are paid by the county council, out of funds provided by the parents?

Mr. MacGregor: I have had the matter looked into this morning, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman were not so disparaging of the pre-school playgroup movement. I think that it has achieved a great deal.
Let me turn to other resources. The education share of the Government's local authority grant settlement for next year amounts to very nearly £15 billion. Over 9 per cent. higher than for 1989–90, it is a huge sum by any standards. As regards capital resources for schools, next year will see a substantial increase for local authority capital and for grants to voluntary-aided and special agreement schools. The big increase in funds made available will allow local education authorities and governing bodies to continue their programme of improvement to schools. What we are making available for new improvement work alone—this, of course, is through the annual capital guidelines, and clearly it would be possible for local authorities to add considerably to it through capital receipts and in other ways—is a four-and-a-half times increase on the figure for last year.
Of course, there is never enough to satisfy everybody's aspirations. But I have to remind hon. Members that capital spending per pupil has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. I do not yet have the figures for actual spending—as distinct from forecasts—for 1988–89 or 1989–90, but I expect them to show further very substantial increases in real terms. I ask the House to contrast this with the record of the last Labour Government, who cut spending on local authority schools capital to around half its 1974 level in real terms.
All this clearly puts paid to any claims that this Government are not investing in our schools. Of course we would like to do more—all of us would like to do more—but we have to do what is possible within the resources available in the country as a whole. But we also believe that taxpayers and ratepayers have a right to expect that their money will be well spent. It is the Government's duty to press local education authorities, schools and colleges to achieve the best possible return for the enormous resources given to them.
We have had from the hon. Member for Blackburn the same old Socialist agenda rooted in the failed solutions of the 1970s. Opposition Members talk about a commitment to excellence, but where we seek to build excellence, their party has a commitment to destruction.
Opposition Members would tear up choice for parents. Their idea of excellence is a monolithic single-state system. When they talk about choice—they do not often do so—they do not mean choice for parents. When they talk about a new partnership, they mean a return to the old tyranny of monopoly local education authority provision. Theirs is a commitment to producers, not to consumers. Ours is a commitment to pupils and parents.
Opposition Members posture about a broad and balanced curriculum, but their own policy document will deny it. By limiting the national curriculum to the core subjects of English, maths and science, they will return schools to the unsatisfactory mish-mash in which many pupils followed an inadequate and unbalanced curriculum.
Our reforms of the school system are necessary for the new world of the 1990s. They are in schools now, building upon the solid foundation that the Government have already put in place. They are now rapidly taking shape, to the benefit of pupils, parents and teachers. The real failure would be to stand in the way of those great reforms. The Government have created them, are developing them and will bring them to fulfilment.
In comparison with that record of reform and achievement, from the utterances by the hon. Member for Blackburn, it is obvious that he and his party have no new thoughts. They peddle the failed old mixture that they peddled before. This afternoon, hon. Members heard plenty of spending commitments along the old lines. We will rapidly try to find out from the hon. Gentleman just what they amount to, and we will ask him to cost them so that we know how much substance there is in them.
The last Labour Government made promises and totally failed to achieve them. In fact, we saw a downturn in spending. In 1987, the Labour party made promises, but, when they were totted up, the electorate saw through them and realised that we could not afford them on that scale at that time. We will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon and we will ask him many questions about exactly what his proposals amount to. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am amazed that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can give such a misguided impression of what is happening in schools throughout the country. In particular, I refer to teachers' impressions of their own worth, especially in view of the pay deal that is currently being examined. I would have liked the Secretary of State to have come clean and said, "Yes, I made a miscalculation when I wrote to Lord Chilver about the pay award for the coming financial year. Inflation is rising, and I recommend a further amount to deal with that." Hon. Members heard nothing like that. We heard only "Wait and see."
One would imagine that the Government have just come to power, that the problems that they talk about are new and have taken them by surprise, and that they have had nothing to do with them. Today's problems are a result of the wasted opportunities of the 1980s. During that decade, we experienced real underfunding by central Government. Education was neglected, and educators at

all levels were subjected to abuse by Government Ministers. That is why we have such problems in our education system.
We are spending less of our gross domestic product on education, although the challenges of the 1990s in Europe and further afield will require a far more highly educated and trained work force. Had we been able to maintain the spending level that was much denigrated in 1979, we would be spending a further £3 billion on education. There has been a drop of 27 per cent. in real terms. We must tell the electorate, "Forget the flannel about the Government's wonderful spending record." Without exception, the real increases in education have been due to spending by local authorities that have cared about their education responsibilities. For example, in the past decade there was an increase in university spending of about about 1 per cent., with the Government responsible for virtually all funding. Where local authorities have made a substantial contribution to polytechnics, the number of students has increased by more than 50 per cent. Commitment has come from Labour local authorities, not from Tory central Government.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points later.
Throughout the 1980s, teachers' pay fell behind that of other non-manual workers. It is almost £1,000 less than it would have been had the marker that was set down in 1979 continued. Failures are to be found everywhere.
Because of changes in the rate support grant, Welsh local authorities have lost almost £1 billion of central Government funds to finance local government services, of which education takes the lion's share. When Her Majesty's inspectors examined the state of schools in Wales, they found that, as in England, there was a massive backlog of repairs. In my county of Mid Glamorgan, an estimated £25 million was needed to bring schools up to standard. In the neighbouring county of West Glamorgan the figure was £28 million, in Gwent it was £14·5 million, and in the rural county of Powys the figure was £5 million. The results of Government underfunding stare us in the face in dingy schools.
The Secretary of State for Wales had the wonderful idea of the valleys initiative. When the proposal was first aired, Mid Glamorgan county council said, "What a wonderful idea. We badly need six new schools in our valleys." The valleys initiative was published, and it stated that there would be six schools for the county of Mid Glamorgan. However, the initiative failed to state that two schools were due to be opened in a month and that the other four were already planned. Not an extra penny was put into the valleys initiative to build new schools or to improve existing ones, but there was plenty of money to give pubs a new coat of paint. The Government could find money for pubs but not for schools. That is indicative of their thinking.
When we moved from the old Burnham system of remuneration to the new interim advisory committee system, and when it finally put the first award into practice and examined the money that was provided by central Government to fund it, my county of Mid Glamorgan found that it was more than £300,000 short of what was needed. The county had no part in the negotiations for the


pay award. The Government gave a sum of money to the interim advisory committee that determined the award, but the ratepayers of Mid Glamorgan had to find £325,000 to finance it.
A similar problem can be found in the implementation of the national curriculum. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to say what wonderful things will happen as a result of the national curriculum, but, once again, his Department and the Secretary of State for Wales are failing sufficiently to fund the changes.
There is, for example, the question of the proper teaching of science subjects in primary schools. In Mid Glamorgan, about half of all primary schools were built before the first world war, and they have neither the water supplies nor the power points needed for science to be taught properly in their classrooms. The Government gave Mid Glamorgan £200,000 to start a programme of upgrading those old schools, but the county council has been obliged to find a further £480,000 to implement what it still describes as a modest programme for ensuring that proper facilities are available for teaching the national curriculum.
I asked parliamentary questions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and of the Secretary of State for Wales about extra funding for implementing the national curriculum in respect of children with special needs, but both replied that no special money would be provided for that purpose. As to the modest primary school programme, Mid Glamorgan county council will have to ask each poll tax payer for £1·25 extra to fund it, when at the same time the Government are putting pressure on local authorities to keep down the level of poll tax.
The theme for the first two years of this decade, as for the 1980s, will be underfunding of our education service. The Secretary of State referred to the importance of teachers, but it seems that their wages will continue not to reflect their importance to the community. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will explain how the education service is to respond to the excessive inflation that is a consequence of the Government's economic policies.
There are accounts in today's newspapers about the pressures on teachers, who feel that they are of little worth—partly because of the low wages that they are paid—and are leaving the profession. They cannot stand the pressures imposed by an underfunded system and look for easier jobs elsewhere. Although the Secretary of State might deny that there are shortages and say that more people are entering teacher training this year than for a long time, the number for crucial subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and craft, design and technology is below the target set by the Department. The shortages can only get worse.
Wales has never been known for having a lack of teachers, but Mid Glamorgan is reporting difficulties in recruiting teachers of modern languages, Welsh, technical subjects and science. That is the legacy of a decade of Conservative rule. I hope that the House will support the motion fully as that is a way of showing the public that

there are people in positions of power committed to improving the country's education service. We shall prove that by voting for the motion.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I shall be brief, and so that others of my right hon. and hon. Friends may participate I am not prepared to give way to any interventions.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke of the legacy of a decade of Conservative government. Anyone who has been involved in education for a number of years will acknowledge that educational legacies take a long time to accrue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the Government's efforts over the past decade, which led to gradual change and implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988.
Anyone involved in education at national level in the 1970s will remember the problems that the service suffered then. I make no apology for reiterating the remarks of my right hon. Friend in respect of the 1976 public expenditure White Paper, which recommended the most draconian cuts in all social services after many promises—some of which have been repeated today—were made. The remarks of Opposition Members today prompt the question, "Haven't we heard it all before?"
The Education Reform Act 1988 will bring massive and welcome changes, but I draw some specific matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend. He spoke of the need to introduce assessment and testing, and said that schemes for that purpose will come on stream in the near future. He spoke also of the need to maintain the impetus of change, with which we would all agree. However, other aspects of the implementation of change should be borne in mind. Records of achievement, for example, can add immeasureably to the value of primary school education. They are welcomed by parents and teachers and are extremely popular with the pupils themselves. I trust that there will be no lessening of my right hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring that records of achievement will be kept.
As to teacher costs following the implementation of local management schemes, it is no coincidence that local authority after local authority, whether Conservative or Labour-controlled, has expressed grave concern about the effects that those costs will have on school budgets. I have the honour to be chairman of a large, group 8 primary school, of which there are not many. It has £12,000 worth of incremental drift per year. The table of winners and losers shows it to be a winner on day one, but it rapidly becomes a loser. The governing body faces severe problems in contemplating what teacher costs will mean for that school. I urge my right hon. Friend to re-examine that aspect. He has received representations about it, and I know that it is a matter of concern to him.
I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House unite in the desire to see delivered the Government's education reforms. By and large, they will be delivered by the commitment of teaching staff in our schools.
It is true to say that problems are emerging in many schools. I do not disagree one jot with what my right hon. Friend said about teachers' commitment. I do not disagree one jot with what he said about improved standards for teacher training, which we would all welcome. I urge him to reflect upon what has been said in many quarters—that


the speed of the change, and the extra workload being imposed, is causing strain. That must be recognised and dealt with. It can be done in several ways.
The problems of the interim advisory committee and the question of the restoration of teachers' negotiating rights are causing difficulties in the teaching service, but I think that those problems can and will be solved in the not-too-distant future.
We have certainly not resolved the problem of delivery. I believe that people who are interested in and concerned with education expect the Government's reforms to bring about a considerable improvement in standard and quality throughout the education system. We cannot afford to see the reforms fail because we do not have adequate staff to deliver them. Therefore, we must study the problem carefully.
We have heard a great deal about the way in which we should deal with teachers' salaries. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will remember the time that we spent together on the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' education committee and on the Burnham committee, studying the problems created by the enormous pay hike in the 1974 Houghton award. The Clegg award caused similar problems, with another enormous hike in salaries in 1979. There is universal agreement that that must not be allowed to happen again.
Teachers' morale has been mentioned on many occasions. Morale is affected not just by pay and status, but by an amalgam of factors that lead to an appreciation of what teachers represent and that they alone are able to achieve and to deliver the Government's stated aims. I hope that there will not be any falling-away of the commitment to see those aims achieved in as short a time as possible. However, haste must not be the single determinant, as it is more important to get it right.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the points that I have raised when he studies how his Department will respond to those important matters in the next few months.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will pay heed to the words of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). His expressed words, and some of his implied words, will bear careful reading and reflection, and I am aware that he speaks with experience of the subject. He rightly warned of the need to combine urgency with solidity and consistency, and that it is important to deal with the fundamental issues and not superficial concerns.
The Secretary of State comes to the debate after six months in office. We are at the beginning of a new decade, and it is appropriate that we should look at the state of our schools. We should reflect on the past decade and the coming decade as a background to the motion tabled by the Opposition and the amendment tabled by the Government, and we should consider what has happened to the Government's public commitment to education—the public commitment as manifested by the amount of money that the nation commits to education.
Between 1978–79 and 1990–91 the proportion of public expenditure on education fell from 14·4 per cent. to 13·7 per cent., at the same time as other categories of public expenditure increased, most notably defence. I know that the partial answer to that dichotomy is that school rolls

have been falling. However, the Government seek to gain credit for the fact that there is a better teacher-pupil ratio. We should have been using the great decade of oil revenue to increase the percentage of our public expenditure on education. If the Government stand to be condemned, it is first by the statistics that show that we give less priority to education in our national expenditure now than we did 10 years ago.
I understand the time pressures today on the Secretary of State, but it is interesting that he did not give way when I sought to intervene when he kept on repeating the point made in the Government amendment, that there has been
increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil.
I accept that. But what is the ratio per pupil of expenditure in the ordinary state school, compared to the ratio of expenditure per pupil in a city technology college? The answer is that a disproportionate amount is being allocated, and there is massive expenditure per pupil for the elite little group at a CTC, compared with per pupil expenditure on those much less fortunate pupils who are in a state school. That is unacceptable and unjustifiable by any standard.
The Government are also indicted by other statistics. The Secretary of State does not have to take personal responsibility, but the Government must accept that one sign of how bad their policies have been during the past 10 years is the low take-up rate for post-school education or training of pupils in Britain, compared with our competitor countries. Consider the figures in Australia, Canada, France, West Germany and Japan, which are all countries that we must compete with in an increasingly competitive world. The staying-on rate for pupils after l he official school-leaving age in Britain is less than half the rate in some of those countries, and the number is rising less quickly.
The educational attainment statistics and targets in Britain have been compared with those in other countries during past debates. For example, during the current Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, information has been given that the number of people in higher education in Korea has already reached the figure that the Government have targeted for 10 years' hence. We are falling behind appallingly.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way. It is not that I do not wish to, but many other hon. Members wish to speak.
We are failing to achieve standards and targets that will give Britain the educated community that it needs. The Government have also now confirmed that they are not after all committed to doubling the number of students in higher education. The reality is that we are not attaining the prerequisite of higher education, as an insufficient number of students aged over 16 stay on at school.
There have been new initiatives on employment training, which are welcome, and it is important that we continue to develop them. However, there is no real commitment or coherence in policy.
It would now be appropriate for the Government to reconsider the idea of amalgamating the Department of Education and Science with the part of the Department of Employment that is responsible for training. I know that that has been considered by the Government, and those functions ought to go together. That is what happens in other countries, for example, Australia. If the education


and training system is integrated, we shall be able to deliver the appropriate curricula and training to produce an appropriately educated work force in the future.
In training, there are many things that we can do and I shall list a few. For example, we could promote more exchanges between staff in schools and colleges and people employed in local industry and commerce, by secondment. We could encourage more technology in schools. We could ensure that teachers have more knowledge of the needs of the local labour market, and we could enable the national curriculum to contain enough flexibility to allow young people to leave school much better equipped for the rapidly changing world of work.
Perhaps the most substantial indictment of the Government's schools policy is the continuing teacher crisis caused by inadequate pay and insufficient numbers, and leading to a tragic lack of morale.
Hidden in the small print of last week's revenue support grant announcement was something rather interesting. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have, in effect, given teachers in the south-east a regional pay advantage? I do not deny that teachers in the south-east—like those elsewhere—need more pay; indeed, my colleagues and I have said so many times in the House. The adjustment in the settlement, however, will not remedy the massive problem of teacher shortages—which is most acute in the south-east, where the cost of living is higher, and most particularly in the more deprived parts of that region.
By eliminating negotiating mechanisms, the Government have limited the amount available for teachers' pay next year. Teachers in other regions are therefore forfeiting part of their pay rise in order to generate scarcely more acceptable salaries for their colleagues in the south-east. I trust that the Minister will agree that that does not constitute an adequate response to the needs of teachers in the most stressed parts of the country.
As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, we are still substantially short of teachers for several core subjects in the curriculum. As is clear from the Central Register and Clearing House survey of the autumn 1989 entry for teacher training, planned entry targets are not being reached in several subjects that the Government themselves consider vital—craft, design and technology, modern languages, mathematics, religious education and science—and that is at least as true today. The cause of the shortage is not just the difficulty of recruiting people with these qualifications across the sectors. Because the appeal of teaching in the state sector is becoming increasingly reduced, given the choice, those with the necessary qualifications tend to opt for a different profession entirely.
The national curriculum is, in part, a good thing: it is wise to ensure that young people are taught all appropriate subjects. It is, however, a major headache for those who are expected to implement it. Teachers are falling behind with their work. The hon. Member for Crosby mentioned the high incidence of stress, and a report produced only today makes clear the importance of this point. Teachers have next to no time to plan, and less and less non-contact time. They are under increasing pressure as they try to deliver all the new initiatives.

Mr. Harry Greenway: That is nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: It is true, and if the hon. Gentleman visited the schools, he would hear as much from heads, deputy heads, departmental heads and all the rest.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman will not give way because he does not know.

Mr. Hughes: I do know. I visit as many schools as the hon. Gentleman, if not more. I have been into the classrooms, out of the limelight, and have talked to ordinary teachers. I have sat in on whole afternoons of lessons, and have seen the obligations that the national curriculum imposes. Governors and teachers know that what I am saying is true, and if the hon. Gentleman, who is a former teacher, does not agree, that shows how far removed he now is from the profession of which he was once an eminent member. Teachers also have the mounting task of recording and assessing the performance of pupils—a task which, given the pressures imposed by the curriculum, they will increasingly be unable to carry out.
I gather that the Government may be likely to scrap the audit proposals. Apparently the Minister of State made that clear yesterday when she visited my constituency, and I hope that she will confirm it when she winds up the debate. If that happens, it will be a welcome change of plan, as teachers will have one less thing to do.
The Secretary of State talked about local management of schools. The Government amendment commends the enthusiasm with which people are supposedly welcoming LMS, but that is certainly not true of all authorities, including even those that are Tory-controlled. Hereford and Worcester, for instance, considers it a very bad idea. I know that county well—where that friend of Ministers, Dr. Muffett, is chairman of the education committee. According to Hereford and Worcester, where
all LMS schools should be funded according to average teaching costs in their local authority, but must meet the actual costs of their own teachers",
Hereford and Worcester does not intend to go ahead with the scheme, because its schools
could lose more than £100,000 from their budgets.
The teaching profession is still in crisis, and we can find no consolation in the up-to-date national figures. The Secretaryof State did not proffer any; the last accurate Government figures were given in a written answer a year ago. We do know, however, that 20,000 teachers left the classrooms last year. We know that, unprecedentedly, the six teachers' unions have united to tell the Government that there is a crisis, and not just in the capital. We know that in some subjects that crisis is worse than ever. We also know that there are now more than 1,000 teaching vacancies in inner London, and I know that there are more than 225 in my borough of Southwark. If that is not a crisis, I do not know what will ever constitute one.
I have been to see the Minister of State with my proposals. I suggested that the Secretary of State should urgently call a meeting of London teachers and listen to their ideas, because they know what they are talking about. I also suggested ways of facilitating teachers from Australia, New Zealand and Ireland teaching here, a mechanism for reviewing incentive payments and a mechanism to ensure that many of the empty properties


that have recently been built at such great expense are made available to teachers in the south-east. So far those suggestions have been greeted with silence. The Government could have come up with some urgent and effective initiatives, but they have not done so.
What, then, is the position at the beginning of the new decade? We are spending a smaller proportion of our gross domestic product on education than many of our neighbours; bizarrely and alarmingly, we are spending even less of our GDP on education than Third-world countries such as Swaziland, Zambia and Zaire. We are making defence spending a greater priority, while we are reducing education spending. The policy to recruit more teachers has clearly failed. LMS and its method of implementation are not acceptable, even to Tory local government. Many teachers fear the implementation of the national curriculum.
There is no vision for the future, just as there has been no successful policy in the past. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State must accept that the policies of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), have failed: they have not produced successful results. Change is needed urgently if British education is not to have an even bleaker future in the 1990s than it had in the 1980s.
Let me warn the Secretary of State that at the end of his first year he will receive his first annual report. All I can say is that he had better do much better than the previous pupil in his position in the class, and much better than he has done in the first six months of his term of office

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I agree on at least one thing—the need for better remuneration for teachers—but I disagree entirely with his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the benefit of whose reforms the hon. Gentleman will see in the not-too-distant future.
Last week the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as "fizzing with fury". Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that his speech did not fizz with anything. It contained no inspiration, no excitement and no new ideas; it was all too predictable—dull, boring and far too long.
I suspect that the wording of today's motion would be rather more accurate if it referred to "the failure of the Opposition to produce any policies on schools". It is significant that the part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that referred to his policies lasted less than one minute, and I found his silence eloquent.
We get the same old, tired stuff from the Opposition that we have heard so many times. The Labour party's policies continue to be those of levelling down. Where excellence is seen, they seek to destroy it. They are completely negative and totally destructive. They will abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. They even seek to denigrate the independent sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am not surprised to hear Opposition Members confirm so unreservedly that they would like the independent sector to be abolished.
For Opposition Members, parental choice is meaningless. For them, freedom of choice in education, as in everything else, is meaningless. We seek to improve the

quality and the standard of state education, where the majority of our children are educated. We start with the improvement of educational provision for the under-fives. Almost 25 per cent. more children under five years of age attend nursery or primary schools when compared with the last year of the last—and I do mean the last—Labour Government.
Seventy five per cent. of all four-year-olds now go to local education authority maintained nursery or primary schools. During the last 10 years, the proportion of three and four-year-olds going to school has increased to almost 45 per cent., and nine out of 10 attend nursery classes, reception classes or playgroups.
There is even more good news in primary and secondary schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley are beginning to bear fruit. The Education Reform Act 1988, which provided for the national curriculum, the introduction of local management of schools, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools, will be a landmark in British education.
It is significant that the two great Acts of this century to reform education were introduced and piloted through the House by Conservative Secretaries of State. The only new education initiatives have come from Conservative Administrations. The city technology college programme still goes forward, despite the spiteful attitude of Opposition Members and their colleagues in certain education authorities. The politics of envy still exists. The impact of the national curriculum will be felt throughout the education system. It ensures that schools do not waste valuable time or resources on less important subjects. It concentrates on those that are recognised as of real value.
In addition, and confounding its critics, the GCSE examination is proving a substantial success. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. In speech after speech, she has properly drawn attention to the success of the GCSE examination. It will improve the quality of our children's education. One of the best proofs of the improvement in quality is the increase in admissions to higher education. It is no accident that, during the last 10 years, 200,000 additional students have been admitted to universities, polytechnics and further education colleges.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Mainly to polytechnics.

Mr. Pawsey: That underlines, as perhaps nothing else does, the fact that the quality of education in our schools is improving and that it will continue to improve. There would be little point in seeking to improve access to higher education unless young people leaving school were properly qualified to take advantage of the additional places. That is a measure of the success of the Government's policies. It is one of the benchmarks against which our policies will be judged.
Opposition Members have referred to teachers. Certainly we require the full-hearted co-operation of the profession if our reforms are to bear fruit. Like the love of a good woman, a good teacher is beyond price. Sometimes I believe—to return to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton)—that the torrent of paper now overwhelming our schools prevents head teachers and staff from getting on with their primary job, which is to teach. The pace and the extent of the


reforms have placed a great strain on teachers. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley goes down in history as the great initiator, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science will be remembered as the great consolidator. He quite properly believes that there should be a period during which schools can digest the various reforms that we have introduced.
I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that teachers' remuneration should adequately reflect the importance of the work they do. Most teachers in British schools are dedicated both to their profession and to the children who are in their charge. The interim advisory committee has been given £600 million this year to improve teachers' pay. That figure is 55 per cent. higher than last year and double that of the previous year.
It is amusing to reflect on Opposition criticism of teachers' pay. During their last period in office, teachers' pay increased by 6 per cent. That has to be compared with this Government's record: during the last 10 years, teachers' pay has increased in real terms by 30 per cent. That shows the people of this country who actually care about teachers and their level of pay.
A survey of teacher numbers was undertaken by the Department. It confirmed that almost 22,000 students went into teacher training in 1989. That was a substantial increase over 1988. But perhaps the best indicator of teacher numbers was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech when he referred to the pupil-teacher ratio. I was delighted that, in response to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), told me:
The overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1989 was 17 and in January 1979"—
under a Labour Government—
was 18·9".—[Official Report, 16 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 159.]
That is a real and significant improvement.
As usual, the Opposition's arguments are long on rhetoric and on criticism but short on ideas. Does anybody, either inside or outside the House, really know what the Opposition's education policies are? Even more to the point, does anybody really care? Perhaps the greatest criticism of the hon. Member for Blackburn and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), is that nobody knows what they would do, were they to be elected to office. The electorate would be required to sign the usual blank Socialist cheque and take on trust whatever a Labour Government chose to give them.
In the Standing Committee that is considering the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the Opposition's favourite phrase is "as resources allow." That is the inevitable cop-out of Socialism. I do not doubt that the intentions of the hon. Member for Blackburn are good. However, the path of Socialism is always paved with promises—promises which will be honoured, but only when resources allow. The Opposition are as ever long on promises but short on delivery.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is very honest: he profoundly believes in the nonsense that he talks. I propose to deal with reality.
The shortage of teachers is a developing crisis. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers told the Select Committee—or it may have been the Standing Committee considering the Education Reform Bill—that it was a developing catastrophe. Every group that we visited described it in those terms.
There is a shortage of full-time teachers; if the Minister believes that the correct figure is 4,000, let him go on believing that. The crisis is on such a scale that it will come to hang around his neck before long and then he will have to look at the real figures.
There are shortages of part-time and supply teachers. The Secretary of State and Conservative Members never mention what happens when applications for teaching posts are invited. There used to be 10, 20 or 30 applications for each position; now there are regularly only one or two. In order to put a body before a class, schools have to select one of those two because of the shortage and the way in which teachers have been treated by the Government.
Our schools are crumbling. Hon. Members do not need to listen to me—they have only to go and look at the state of our schools. All this endangers the national curriculum, which cannot be put in place without enough teachers.
There is a lack of teachers with qualifications appropriate to the subjects that they need to teach. In primary schools, teachers face endless meetings at lunchtime and after school; they also face pressure to go on courses. Stress is endemic in the primary sector, in which teachers are beginning to lack confidence because of the abuse heaped on them by successive Tory Ministers.
Extremely able teachers are beginning to feel inadequate because of the pace of events and the pressures to implement the Education Reform Act 1988. Teachers have faced continual attacks and rudeness from the Government and Conservative Members—but that has suddenly changed because of the shortage of teachers and the crisis in the system. Conservative Members now talk nicely about teachers because they want to recruit them.
At the same time, we are witnessing the fruits of the Government's demeaning of the profession. The Education Reform Act had nothing to do with the private sector. Ministers in the Committee considering that Bill frankly admitted that. The Secretary of State said today that he was asking teachers in the private sector to consider the national curriculum. He did not ask teachers in the public sector; he passed a law making them implement the curriculum.
Conservative Members call the private sector independent. It is not. It is not independent of the wealthy and the rich, on whom it depends. And it gives itself away by taking funds from the public sector of education to give to the city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being poured into those colleges—money taken from the public sector. One such college in Nottingham is costing almost £8 million, yet only £2 million has been allocated for 400 schools in the rest of the area—and Conservative Members think that sensible. Other schools will suffer because of those colleges.
As for teachers' low wages, the Secretary of State knows that the Prime Minister has allowed him only £600 million, which makes little or no difference. Teachers' poor pay and lack of negotiating rights were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organisation five years ago. The Government continue to mingle in the international fraternity without giving teachers the negotiating rights that all other nations have. That is what the Government have done to the teachers by diktat.
Now the Government are starting to praise teachers, but they have still given them no negotiating rights. Only increased salaries and better conditions will bring back the teachers whom we need. There are 400,000 teachers who are not teaching—the same number as are. They are ready to return to the profession if they are given decent conditions. At present we are raking over the leaves of Europe, bringing in teachers from Denmark, Holland and other nations—countries in which teachers' wages are almost twice as high as here—many of whom cannot speak English. We have all the teachers we need here, and given proper circumstances and wages, they would return.
Teachers need a properly funded major salary increase to give them professional levels of pay. They need incentive allowances, proportionate to the needs of the professionals who have left the service. They need better conditions, better status and respect for the excellent job that they do.
Meanwhile a great deal of money has gone in the direction of the CTCs because the Government want to privatise our education system. The CTCs must be withdrawn; the Government must understand that we shall withdraw them.
If the Government do not take note of what I have honourably and quickly outlined, our children will suffer, parents will suffer, the system will suffer and all this will amount to a recipe for educational disaster. Conservative Members may smile, but they should wait and see what happens when the Education Reform Act and other Government proposals are imposed on our children. The children of Conservative Members do not even enter the same system; similarly, Conservative Members do not use the Health Service that they are destroying.

Mr. George Walden: I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), except to say that I am in favour of the maximum possible expenditure on education consistent with the promise of improved standards—which brings me to the point that I want to make, which concerns A levels.
I apologise for resorting to Americanese, but in the interests of brevity I shall. The question I want to ask the Government is: are A levels being "dumbed down"? Is it Government policy to allow them to be dumbed down? We have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commend the education system for improving standards by means of the GCSE. I am not an ideological opponent of the GCSE, but I share the doubts of those who have expressed surprise that the number of people gaining top passes in the GCSE has increased by 50 per cent. in two years. This smacks of educational inflation, and I am not alone in taking that view. In this country we have financial inflation and housing inflation, and it seems we now run the risk of educational inflation, too.
The educational establishment is urging on the Government the need to bring A levels into line with the GCSE. In the past, I have always been worried by the rather secretive and autonomous nature of the examination councils. I have recently seen evidence that dumbing down is going on in A levels—an extremely serious matter.
A few years ago, the Government decided against the Higginson committee's sensible recommendation that A-levels should be broadened so that pupils would take five instead of three. On reflection, I believe that the Government were right to resist that, because I suspect that they, like me, do not have enough confidence in the educational establishment broadening the A-level syllabus while maintaining standards.
The establishment is getting its own back on the Government because, out of control of the Government and without reference to them, it is going about the business of dumbing down A-levels under the guise of bringing them into line with the GCSE. My evidence springs particularly from one examining board, which is toning down and debasing the content of the English A-level syllabus. For example, it will include not two Shakespearian plays but one; there will be room for Caribbean poetry, but not for two Shakespearian plays. I could give other details, but for the sake of time I will not do so.
If the Government are to raise educational standards, to put more money into the curriculum, as they should, and to talk up the GCSE, they must be honest with themselves and ask the examining councils what they are doing to A levels. Extra expenditure on education will cause educational inflation in the number of certificates given to pupils, who will be told that they have done extremely well, when in fact they have not because the examination has been simplified or, as the Americans say, "dumbed down". That will produce the same results as financial and housing inflation. Foreigners will eventually find us out. We talk about equalising educational diplomas throughout Europe, but it will gradually become apparent that an 18-year-old English child does not attain the same level as an equivalent French child. That will be bad for the reputation of education in this country.
It is imperative that the Government take my question seriously and do not take refuge behind the etiquette of the education system by saying "This is not for us but for the examining councils." I should like a serious reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. The worst possible thing that could happen would be if the pressures from the Government and education interests to expand higher education, of which I approve, were to be founded on a diminishing intellectual base.
The universities should take that point seriously. If by a stroke of fate I were a Treasury Minister—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had this experience some time ago—and the Treasury were asked for more money for higher education; if I were to be reminded of the importance of not only vocational subjects but the humanities; and if I had evidence that the intake of universities was based on a debased A-level syllabus, I would laugh in the face of the Secretary of State and refuse him money. What is the point of giving higher education more money if standards are going not up but down?
The question I am asking is crucial. All the good work that the Government have done and all their investment—the Secretary of State made a generally reassuring speech today—will count for nothing if the examination


system inflates the currency of education and leaves us with an egalitarian policy, to which the Government are supposed to be opposed.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I realised that I had not much time, so I quickly tried to cut my speech.
I should like to reiterate the statement made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that morale in the teaching profession has never been lower than it is today. That was an accurate statement. I have visited schools in my constituency, but I have never found teachers so disheartened as they are now. The reason for that is their pay and conditions. They are demoralised and have lost all confidence in the Government.
Teachers' pay is a major issue. I am sure that hon. Members have received dozens of letters from teachers, but I should like to quote from one that I received from a teacher, Jeff Palmer, in my constituency. He says:
I am the Head of Physics at Washington School. I am 43 years of age and have been teaching for 15 years. Before entering teaching I worked in industry for 10 years. I have a degree in Physics and industrial qualifications. My salary is under £16,000 …
The morale in the profession has never been lower. Most of my colleagues are sick and tired at having more and more work placed upon them. They, and I, are fed up with Mr. MacGregor and others telling us what a marvellous job we did in implementing GCSE and how we are going to make a success of National Curriculum, and at the same time deny us a reasonable wage.
That letter is similar to dozens of others that I and other hon. Members have received.
The Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1987 became law early in that year. The Government insisted that it would be a temporary measure, but it has now been extended until 1991. In 1988, the Government were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organisation for denying teachers their negotiating rights. The Secretary of State is refusing to comply with international law. He continues to flout international conventions that have been ratified by the Government.
The majority of complaints made by teachers is about their pay and conditions, so let us consider the real statistics. At the present rate of inflation, by March 1990 teachers' pay will have increased by 2·5 per cent. lower than inflation in the period during which the interim advisory committee has been in operation. A teacher at the top of the main professional grade will be £400 a year worse off because of inflation. During the period that the IAC has existed, the pay of teachers at the top of the main professional grade, with an allowance, will have increased by 13·8 per cent. less than the increase in average earnings—a relative loss of £2,100 per year. Is not that the main reason for the shortage of teachers in our schools?
Why does the Secretary of State persist in using selective statistics that amount to misleading propaganda about teachers' pay? He maintains that they have had a 40 per cent. increase since March 1986. He knows that between 1979 and March 1986 teachers' pay increased by 58 per cent., while that of other non-manual workers increased by 76 per cent. The 40 per cent. increase that he claims for teachers since 1986 is merely part of a catching-up exercise. Since 1979, the pay of non-manual

workers has increased by 132 per cent., but teachers' pay has increased by only 118 per cent. The Secretary of State should give the full picture, not his partial account.
As the Secretary of State knows, a detailed survey of vacancies carried out by the six teachers' unions—it is not often that they get together to do anything—made it clear that schools currently have about 8,000 vacancies. He knows quite well that insufficient graduates are opting for teaching as a career. Why should they become teachers, with a salary of just £9,390, when they can obtain salaries well in excess of £10,000 elsewhere? Even if the full £600 million that the Secretary of State has allowed for increases this year were distributed entirely to the main scale, it would still give teachers a starting salary of about £10,100 next year. He knows that that money will not be so distributed and that teaching will remain as unattractive as it is at present.
The Government have made numerous promises to disband the IAC, but they have failed to honour their pledges and have made no serious attempt to do so. The truth is that they do not want teachers to have back their negotiating rights. They wish to continue to dictate teachers' pay as part of their policy to control public spending.
For three years, teachers have accepted imposed pay and conditions and education reforms such as the national curriculum, which has resulted in a hugely increased work load for them. We congratulate them on making the GCSE a success. But enough is enough. To make matters worse, if that is possible, we now find that the £600 million planned increase for teachers' pay is being allocated on a regional basis. This change undoubtedly underpins the Government's intention to introduce new differentials in teachers' pay.
Without providing any new money and without negotiating with the trade unions, the Government have put in place preferential financial arrangements for employers in the whole of the south-east region. The publication 10 days ago of the revenue support grant settlement for 1990–91 contained these new arrangements in small print in an annex. Teachers in the south-east can therefore be offered bigger pay rises at the expense of their colleagues in the rest of the country. We oppose this arbitrary imposition of regional pay differentials. It is totally unjust that teachers elsewhere in the country should forfeit part of their pay rise, which is bound to be inadequate, in order to generate scarcely more acceptable salary levels for their colleagues in the south-east.
No explanation has been offered by the Secretary of State. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate she will explain why this has happened. In previous years only part of the south-east received extra grant; now the whole of the south-east will get it.
Teachers are leaving the profession in huge numbers, despite what the Department of Education and Science says. The Guardian of 29 December carried the following report:
Five times more teachers are leaving the profession than official statistics reveal. A report by researchers at Manchester University's school of education found that 20,000 teachers left the classroom in 1989, compared with the government figure of just 4,000. The report blames the scale of the losses on the effects of the Education Reform Act. Work overload, poor pay and low morale were the main reasons given for leaving.
As I said, I have received dozens of letters from disgruntled teachers. I had intended to quote another, not


from a constituent but from someone in Birmingham who had had enough and had written to me, but I shall not do so because another hon. Member wants to speak and I have given a guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would allow him time.
The teaching force is already disgruntled. Unless the Government take action pretty quickly, the problem will get worse, and more teachers will leave the profession. Our children are losing out. The Government will not be forgiven for the damage that they are doing to the nation.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I share Tuesdays and Thursdays on the Education (Student Loans) Bill with the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), and I am grateful to him for sitting down promptly and allowing me an opportunity to intervene in the debate. He read out a letter from a physics teacher. As an ex-physics teacher, I found that a good way to get my support.
Although I do not go along with the general theme of doom and gloom that we have heard from the Opposition Benches, at least I agree with Opposition Members that the nettle of teachers' pay must be grasped. I do not know if they will all share my view that, when we consider teacher shortages and other problems referred to during the debate, we shall have to grasp the nettle of differentials and local pay bargaining and get away from the old scales which operated when I was a teacher and which still, I am afraid, operate today. They were not good for teachers' pay, any more than was the old Burnham committee whose return Opposition Members are always calling for. The Burnham committee was very bad for teachers' pay, so whatever way forward the Secretary of State chooses, I ask him not to go for another Burnham committee.
I welcome the calmer atmosphere in which the education debate is now taking place. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his colleagues for the way in which they have taken a lead in providing that atmosphere in which we can talk about education and its future in a civilised fashion.
I support the aims of the Education Reform Act 1988 and so intend to support the Prime Minister's amendment tonight. In the brief time available to me I simply want to refer to something which will be on the agenda for education in the future—the relationship between national and local government. We have heard a great deal about local government, but no hon. Member has so far spoken about something which is in the minds of Members on both sides of the House: the present unsatisfactory relationship between national and local government when it comes to education.
Under present education policy, more and more the focus is placed on the classroom and the school, but the recent reforms have also strengthened the role and function of the Department of Education and Science. I have no idea if it was the original intention but although, rightly, we are putting more and more power into the hands of governors, teachers, heads and parents, unwittingly perhaps we are putting more power into the hands of the Department. We now have tension between the local authorities and the Department on such matters as the definition of the curriculum and city technology

colleges, which I strongly support. Tension also arises on the question of grant-maintained schools—of which I am a strong supporter—and the education support grant.
The role of the local education authority, therefore, has diminished and, probably under any Government, will continue to diminish. This is not to undervalue the good work done by many local education authorities, including my own in Norfolk, but we have also heard this evening about the appalling record of the Inner London education authority, shortly to go, unlamented.
The Government and the local education authorities continually blame each other for the effect of their decisions on, for example, school numbers, the average pay concept and the setting up of budgets in schools. My own view is that the present system is too bureaucratic. Along with many of my colleagues, I prefer a centrally-funded system with a supervision of standards by the Department of Education and Science. There is no time to develop the details of this, but it could be fleshed out if time was available. The great advantage of central funding, particularly relevant to the debates of the past week or so, would be an immediate two-thirds reduction in the community charge.

Mr. Cryer: Good idea.

Mr. Thompson: I am developing a theme and seeing where it leads. The figure of £278 which is presently being quoted would then become something like £200.
I have believed for a long time that education should be funded centrally, before anyone even thought of the community charge, but in view of the time I would like to conclude my arguments without dwelling too long on the community charge itself.
The arguments developed by Ministers against central funding of education are, I think, flawed. If time allowed, I would develop that theme and explain why my suggestion is perfectly feasible. The change that I have suggested could be presented as a major commitment to education and training by the Government. Central funding would mean a small increase in funding by the Exchequer, which would no longer be raised locally. As we are agreed that greater priority should be given to education and training, I can see my suggestion, supported by many of my colleagues, going along with an increased commitment in that regard.
We have heard stories of doom and gloom from the Opposition, but no constructive suggestions. The constructive suggestions have come from Conservative Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that my argument for a change in the relationship between local authorities and Government is intellectually sound, has much support and should be seriously considered.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: This has been a debate about education standards. It has been about the Government's policies on standards and their lack of ambition in terms of raising this country's education standards to the level in western Europe and other parts of the world.
I should like to pick up two points that were made by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), in what I think was his first speech since he became Chairman of the Select Committee on


Education, Science and Arts, made an interesting and well-informed speech. I hope that Ministers listened to his comments about local management of schools. Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities throughout the country are afraid that LMS will create a set of unmanageable problems which will damage the delivery of education.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) talked about A-level examinations and the possible need to make reforms along the lines suggested in the Higginson report. He talked himself into a certain state of pessimism. It is possible to achieve a broader examination of students at 18 while maintaining standards. Higginson offered the Government a way in which that could be achieved. When the Labour party is elected to office in a year or two, we will implement the Higginson recommendations and reform the 18-plus examination.
The key phrase in the debate was uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), when he said that, as a parent, the key question that he would want to ask was whether the delivery of education satisfied him in relation to his children. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members should ask that question. Would we be satisfied with some conditions that obtain in our education system? The answer is that, if we honestly face those problems in schools to which our children go, we will have difficulty in saying, "Yes, we are totally satisfied."
The Secretary of State often talks about there not being a real teacher shortage problem, but he then admits that there is a problem in London and the south-east. If there is a problem there, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues whether they would want their children to go to a school in Tower Hamlets. The teacher shortage in that borough is so acute that the local authority is considering recruiting teenagers, not as teachers but as child minders, so that young people do not run around the streets and so that children are not without care during the day. That is not about education; it is just about child minding.
The Secretary of State said today and in his letter to his parliamentary colleagues that, in addition to the geographical problem, there may be a shortage problem in certain specialist subjects—for example, mathematics, physics, chemistry and modern languages. My hon. Friends should make the calculations and tell us what would be left of the national curriculum if those crucial subjects were taken out. It would mean taking out about 40 per cent. of the national curriculum—yet the Secretary of State is satisfied with saying that there is a shortage of those subjects, in the clear and complacent knowledge that delivery of those subjects will be below the standards that parents expect for their children.
The Secretary of State fails to admit a crucial factor—that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in particular subjects. We may get teachers in front of children, but we do not always get teachers with the requisite skills. [Interruption.] It is no good disagreeing with that. The Kingman report on the teaching of English and reports on the teaching of mathematics show the extent of the hidden shortage because we do not have enough properly qualified teachers.
This all points to the need for a highly motivated and properly paid teaching profession. Last year, PA

Management Consultants studied a comparable range of graduate professions. After five years in a profession, the average salary in that group two years ago was nearly £18,000 a year; but after five years' experience, the average salary of graduate teachers is £13,500. Is it therefore surprising that people will not be attracted into or remain in the teaching profession?
The Secretary of State failed in his remarkably complacent speech to recognise the problems of overload in terms of delivering the Government's education reforms. He should go into any primary or secondary school and ask the head teacher how he or she envisages delivering the national curriculum. He will be told that the head teacher does not know the answer, because the Department of Education and Science does not know it. Those who teach subjects such as arts, music and physical education are worried. Eighteen months after the enactment of legislation, the national curriculum working parties in those subjects have not even been set up. How can a head teacher describe how the national curriculum will look on implementation in a school when the Government have not even set up the appropriate working parties?
There is a problem of overload when teachers are not given accurate or reliable information about how the testing system will work. They do not know about the relationship between testing and the national curriculum. The Minister talked proudly about the technical and vocational education initiative, but when we asked questions in the debates on the Education Reform Bill about the future of TVEI and its relationship to the national curriculum, the Minister of State had no answers. Ministers still do not know how TVEI will fit the national curriculum. All those changes are creating problems of overload. It is about time that the Government recognised that those changes also bring into question the standard and delivery of education.
Some Conservative Members dismiss the notion of good schools in a physical sense. They seem to think that the resources available are not important. I shall give some examples to make my point. Queensbury school in Bradford has such bad facilities that there is a lack of laboratory space in which to teach science under the national curriculum. What does that mean for educational opportunities? Faversham street school in Bradford is more than 100 years old and is part of the Victorian legacy to Bradford. I understand that it is a listed building, but everyone who knows anything about that school lists it as unfit for educational purposes. How can we expect children to learn and work in such conditions?
How do the Government expect children in primary schools in Waltham Forest to work in such conditions? There are 61 primary schools—10 are more than 100 years old and 31 are more than 50 years old. Sixteen schools use mobile classrooms, 24 have no gymnasium or sports room, and 30 have no access for young disabled children. All that makes a difference in terms of the facilities available for our children and the school's environment and ability to deliver good-quality education.
This has been a debate about standards. Our argument is simple: without a motivated teacher force, direction, and investment in the physical resources of education, standards cannot be delivered. The Secretary of State made much play of the impact of the GCSE, but it is worth reminding him that the GCSE has worked not because of


the way in which the Government have resourced it but because of the commitment made by individual teachers, beyond their contracts, to make it work.
The Secretary of State ought to answer a point that he made in what was claimed to be an exclusive interview in last Friday's Daily Express with Will Stewart, a home affairs correspondent, who is a reliable journalist. The article said that the Secretary of State was concerned about teacher shortage, and that he was going to run a campaign of television commercials to attract people back into the teaching profession. It also said—I quote the Daily Express, not something I do as a habit—
Mr. MacGregor also asked examiners to take the crisis into account when marking GCSE papers.
Is that not a confession from the Secretary of State that the Government cannot deliver educational standards? It is very much the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham was making: we can get the statistics to look right, but are the Government leaning on examining bodies to ensure that the statistics stand up?
The Secretary of State has made a real confession. For a long time after he became Secretary of State, he tried to hide his talent. Many people thought that he had become the Lord Lucan of the DES, but he emerged eventually. When he did emerge, he made the substantial confession that he has presided over a reduction in standards and in ambition.
The crucial point about the motion is that the Government are presiding over a deterioration in standards and ambition in education. The real indictment of the Government's record is that we have a Secretary of State who is happy to defend the status quo, who has no ambition for the country's education system, and who does not seem to be concerned that the gap between our educational achievements and those of western Europe, the United States and Japan is widening. That is what the CBI said in the autumn. That is the case and the Government continue to preside over the deterioration of education. Above all, they have set low standards and low expectations for children. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the motion.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): When I was reflecting earlier today upon what I was likely to be asked to answer in the debate, and upon the points that would be made by Opposition Members, I made a check list for myself. I started by noting that they would talk about lack of resources and the disgraceful state of buildings, and that they would go on about the support that local authorities, central Government and the taxpayers should give to education; then they would talk about how bad teacher morale was, being negative about it, with not a single positive suggestion; they would talk too about the pay and conditions of teachers. My check list has been rather good. When I look at the runners for the 2.30 at Wolverhampton or Kempton park, I should like to have the same success that I had this afternoon.
Of course, a great deal has been said by Opposition Members about the state of school buildings and the conditions in which children are learning. There is a point to be made—that this year we have contributed 9·6 per cent. more in extra resources for education expenditure.

That is not the whole story. As well as the £485 million in capital grant allocated this year, local authorities can spend money of their own.
It must be said that not all school buildings are in the dilapidated state that Opposition Members allege. One would think that every school was about to fall apart at the seams. It is true that some are in better condition than others, but the condition of many primary schools that I go into is relatively good. We must pay tribute to the teachers who spend a great deal of time making such schools attractive places in which to teach children. It is a pity that we did not hear more about the way in which teachers tackle their jobs.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that it was not attractive for teachers to enter the teaching profession, yet the starting salary for a good honours graduate is £9,400. That is not bad compared to other professions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows that I was in his constituency yesterday. The point made to me by a head teacher there was that what is needed in the teaching profession is a good career structure. By that he meant incremental pay, incentive allowances for subjects where there were shortages, and local allowances for local difficulties. Those are the very things that my right hon. Friend has put in the remit to the interim advisory committee this year.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned another point, also referred to by the hon. Member for City of Durham, that the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has raised with them, presumably in their capacity as advisers. It arises from a misunderstanding of the allowance described in the revenue support grant distribution report for extra labour costs incurred in London and surrounding areas.
The area cost adjustment for education enhances the standard spending assessment of authorities in and around London to allow for extra labour costs incurred in these areas in respect of all employed in the education service. That adjustment is based on objective evidence derived from the new earnings survey. The variations found in different counties on the edge of the area are dependent on the incidence of extra cost shown by the new earnings survey in the constituent districts. Therefore, it does not imply anything about what teachers ought to be paid in those areas.
I turn to my hon. Friends, whose support I have found most gratifying and whose speeches were excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) raised several points. He and I have known each other for many years because we have been together in local and central Government. He was right to mention 1976. At that time we heard of the draconian cuts that the Labour Government had inflicted upon us.
He also mentioned local management schemes, and referred to the schemes asking the Government to look carefully at the proposals for Conservative counties and Labour counties; other hon. Members mentioned the same point. It is important to recognise that authorities have prepared their own local management schemes. Authorities have different schemes; they have used different formulae. Some have gone as far as extending more of their executive rights to the schools, but many local authorities have kept a great deal of money to the centre. There is a transitional period of four years in which the money will go to the schools.
It is the intention of Government that as much money as possible should go from the general schools budget to schools to allow governors and schools to make the decisions that are rightfully theirs about how to spend the money. The principle behind local management schemes is that the money follows the pupil. That means inevitably that the schools that are delivering good education to their children will mean more money for the schools. If one grasps that fundamental point, it means that the market for parents to choose the right schools, in their opinion, for their children will increase the amount of money going to the schools.
As we have talked about choice in education, it is important to underpin what my right hon. Friend has said about it. It is important for children to have the opportunity to go to schools like city technology colleges. That partnership between industry and the public sector is most important. It builds on much of what has been established during the past 10 years in the partnership between industry and the state sector of education. It began with the technical and vocational education initiative and continued with compacts—which, I say generously to the Opposition, came as much from the Inner London education authority as from others.
The idea of city technology colleges is of proven worth and they will undoubtedly be a success. Many parents will want to support them. Grant-maintained schools have also been a great success. There are already 20 of them, and they are attracting more pupils and teachers. It is important to recognise that.
Finally, I wish to refer not only to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for whose support I have been most grateful, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who raised the extremely important point about standards and, in particular, A levels. It is because of the very fears that he expressed about education standards, especially A levels, that we were anxious about accepting the recommendations of the Higginson report.
We felt that it was dangerous to introduce so many changes at one time—the GCSE, the national curriculum, a new system to govern schools and a new system of funding schools. To introduce changes to the A-level examination would inevitably have led to some diminution of quality and of the high level of standards in our schools. That caution has been more than justified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said today. We shall take note of that and draw the attention of the examining bodies to what he said.
The Government's amendment is eminently sensible, and my hon. Friends have clearly shown that it is worth the support of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join us in the Lobby to support our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 285.

Division No. 45]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allen, Graham
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alton, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe




NOES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Fry, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, George


Butler, Chris
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Gow, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Conway, Derek
Gregory, Conal


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Grist, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Ground, Patrick


Couchman, James
Grylls, Michael


Cran, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hague, William


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Day, Stephen
Hanley, Jeremy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Blair, Tony
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Blunkett, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Leighton, Ron


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cox, Tom
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Cummings, John
Livsey, Richard


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Parry, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Redmond, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Richardson, Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Allen McKay.


Spearing, Nigel

Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Sir Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walters, Sir Dennis



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Watts, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Wheeler, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its coherent programme for securing lasting improvements in standards in schools through its policies for the National Curriculum, assessment and testing, for increased parental choice, and for greater autonomy for schools; notes the increased expenditure since 1979 of over 40 per cent. in real terms per pupil; contrasts these reforms with the neglect of relevant education policies by the last Labour Government and the absence of any constructive alternative proposals by Opposition spokesmen; notes that the requirements of the National Curriculum, building on the successful introduction of GCSE examinations, enjoy widespread support in the education system; and welcomes the enthusiasm with which governors, teachers and parents are seizing the opportunity to exercise more choice and greater autonomy in the management of their schools.

Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understand that the normal convention of the House is that, when a Member of the House visits another Member's constituency, he should inform him in advance. It has come to my notice that the Secretary of State for Health has been in my constituency today, although he gave me no notice. He has been at the headquarters of the Northumbria ambulance brigade, where he has been making a propaganda film that puts his side of the ambulance dispute, using vehicles and equipment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Clelland: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to visit my constituency without giving me notice to make a propaganda film to support his side of the ambulance dispute?

Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, there is no absolute rule on this matter, but the convention is that if a Member visits another Member's constituency, he always informs him.

Disabled People

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Once again, I appeal for brief speeches from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches, as a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That this House notes the disturbing findings of the surveys of disability in Great Britain by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which reveal that 6·5 million people are significantly disabled and that there exists a totally unacceptable gap in income levels, employment and other opportunities between them and non-disabled people; endorses the Disability Benefits Consortium's description of the Ministerial statement of 10th January as a disgraceful response to the poverty uncovered by the Government's own surveys of the needs of disabled people; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to respond to the Consortium's call for an open, comprehensive and independent review of benefits.
This House is often at its best in debating the problems and needs of people with disabilities. I have no doubt that, as in so many previous such debates, we shall hear concerned and constructive speeches from all parts of the House. There is now, however, a divide in this policy area that goes much deeper than any in our previous debates. Simply to act in good faith to Britain's 6·5 million disabled people and their organizations, with which we consult often and in detail, we for our part must reflect tonight not just their anguish but also the anger and despair with which they view the Government's proposals in the White Paper "The Way Ahead—Benefits for Disabled People".
Our motion supports the justified criticisms of the Government's proposals from the Disability Benefits Consortium, which speaks for more than 250 organizations of and for disabled people, including all their main national organizations. The Dab's objectives enjoy huge public backing and, if the Government's Whips were taken off, the motion would most certainly be carried tonight.
This debate, like all other debates specifically about disability in the lifetime of this Government, takes place in Opposition time. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, as from his Conservative predecessors in the post, how wonderfully well disabled people fare under this Government. That is what the amendment seems to say. Its wording gives the impression that disabled people should be holding street parties in celebration of the Government's beneficence.
Yet so confident are the Government of the truth of the claims they make about their record that they have never once, in 10 years of power, offered parliamentary time for any wide-ranging debate on the problems and needs of disabled people. That this debate is taking place this evening is due to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is to him that disabled people owe this opportunity for the presentation of their case against a Government whose serene self-satisfaction is almost as hurtful as some of the cuts they have inflicted.
While the Government pat themselves on the back about extra spending, the organizations of and for disabled people are bitterly critical of the hacking away at entitlements hard won from Governments of both parties between 1945 and 1979. The Disability Alliance has shown that there were over 1 million disabled losers from the


social security changes in 1988 alone. Worst hit were those most in need, even people for whom incontinence imposes both added stress and higher living costs.
The Government's self-satisfaction also contrasts with The Lancet report of a survey over Christmas which shows that people with mental disabilities
 … are living like feral children in the forest of the city, scavenging for garbage and subsisting from charitable hand-outs.
As a trustee of Crisis at Christmas, I have been a first-hand witness of this growing army of victims of the collapse of the Government's so-called policies for community care.
The death of Beverley Lewis, whose young life ended in malnutrition and hideous neglect, amid unspeakable squalor, also bears testimony to the huge and growing gap between need and provision. The Minister will know that expert opinion has pointed to the relevance of section 1 (3)(d) of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 to preventing such tragedies.
Is it not scandalous that sections 1 to 3, and other crucially important parts of that legislation, so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), still await implementation nearly four years after their enactment? As Mary Holland of MENCAP says:
Good quality community care is about consultation, representation, assessment, service provision, monitoring and accountability. The 1986 Act embodies these. When will it be implemented in full?
Ministers plead lack of resources for non-implementation. Yet there have been £23 billion worth of tax cuts since 1979, mostly aimed at the fit and fortunate in society. It is thus neither acceptable nor even true for Ministers to say that the money has not been available to implement the Act. The problem has not been, and is not now, one of resources, but of political will and priorities.
Nor is it good enough for Ministers to go on trying to give the impression that they have already won substantial extra resources for improving cash benefits for disabled people. The plain truth is that at least 90 per cent. of the extra spending for which they take credit is due not to any improvement in benefits, but to the increased number of people now claiming the attendance allowance, the mobility allowance, the invalid care allowance and other benefits that were introduced before they came to power. Thus in effect they are claiming credit for not having repealed the mobility allowance and other benefits they inherited from previous Governments.
Ministers should tell the House what the total current cost without loss of value would be had statutory benefits for disabled people remained as they were in 1979. I invite them to do so tonight. Let them state, for example, the total loss to disabled people who do not work of scrapping the link between wages and prices in updating their benefits.
Let the Government also admit that the Conservatives have cut the value of the attendance allowance and the invalid care allowance, among many other benefits of importance to disabled people and their families, since they came to power 10 years ago with a promise to "single out" disabled people for special help. Ten years on, most of Britain's 6·5 million disabled people say they have been "singled out" for special hardship.
They are angered by the Government's parrot-like claims that increased benefits for disabled people have almost doubled expenditure in real terms since 1978–79, when in fact the additional spending is almost all brought

about by the increased number of beneficiaries of allowances that were introduced by previous Governments.
Organizations of and for disabled people argue that the Government's claims are made to mislead the general public into believing that life for their members is getting easier and easier when they know that it is not. Their organizations rightly complain that disabled people—as individuals—are no better off. Indeed, compared with what they received on supplementary benefits, many are poorer in real terms and will become even worse off as their transitional protection loses its value.
The organizations of disabled people were encouraged by ministerial statements to hope that financial hardship among their members would be temporary. They looked forward to the results of the surveys of the OPCS and the review of benefits which they were promised would follow their publication. They felt assured that the Government would consult them before responding to the Opus's reports, and the total lack of consultation with disabled people about "The Way Ahead" adds insult to the injury of its glaring inadequacies. They have been not just ignored but humiliated by the Government's total indifference to their views.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am in some difficulty in that I must refer to a number of policy areas as quickly as possible. I shall help other hon. Members if I proceed quickly. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will understand my difficulty and will be called to speak in the debate.
The OPCS's surveys, while they have been criticized for understating the extra costs of disability and were undertaken before the 1988 benefit changes took effect, are much the best picture we have ever had of disability in Great Britain. The six reports show that most disabled people are locked in a financial vice of reduced earnings and increased living costs. They demonstrate that no new policy can succeed unless it tackles the link between disability and poverty, a link which the Government's policies have reinforced.
About 4·3 million disabled people rely on state benefits as their main source of income with an average total income of £65·20 per week; 4·5 million live in households where there are no earners. When the minimal extra costs of disability are taken into account, the gap between the average incomes of disabled and non-disabled people was over £39 per week at 1988 prices.
Unemployment among disabled job seekers is more than twice as high as the current rate among able-bodied people. They are pushed to the back of the dole queue, which is still the longest queue in Britain, and many are made to sit up and beg from the social fund.
Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working. That compares with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse—33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. Those findings shout of discrimination against disabled workers. The Government's own record, in terms of job offered to disabled people, is among the worst of all employers. The earnings of disabled people who find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children.
Referring to the Opus's reports, the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
The Government will not have a better opportunity to reform benefits.
The SSAC went on to say that benefits for disabled people could now be matched closely to their needs, as revealed by the reports, and that:
This opportunity will almost certainly not be repeated for many years to come and must be grasped.
The Government's reaction to the reports was given on 10 January in "The Way Ahead" which Ian Bruce, director-general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, who co-chairs the Disability Benefits Consortium, has called a
… disgraceful response to the poverty uncovered by the Government's own surveys of the needs of disabled people.
In a fuller statement from the DBC, timed for this debate, the reaction of disabled people to the Government's response is summarised as one of "anger and disbelief".
"The Way Ahead" is the final outcome of a review of benefits from which all but Ministers and civil servants were excluded. The mocking title and gross defects of this backward-looking document have led organizations of and for disabled people to describe it as
… the biggest insult disabled people have been subjected to in the past decade".
No new help at all is offered to people over 65 on the basis that
pensioners have experienced a 23 per cent. growth in net incomes in real terms since 1979".
But those are mostly younger pensioners in occupational schemes, not the millions of older and disabled pensioners who have to eke out an existence on state benefits alone. They were fobbed off last October with a tiny increase in means-tested income support.
No extra financial help goes to the severely disabled people, young and old alike, who need assistance to live independently in their own homes. Yet anyone with knowledge of their lives knows that the attendance allowance makes only a modest contribution to actual care costs. The Disablement Income Group—DIG—in an authoritative report, has shown that care costs were understated by the OPCS, but the Government took no notice of its report. Nor have they taken any account of the amounts paid for care costs by the independent living fund which, as the Minister must know, are very much higher than current rates of the attendance allowance.
The Government apparently now accept that some help should go to disabled people who can do only part-time or low-paid jobs. But the proposed disablement employment credit is likened to family credit, which bolsters low pay and has a very low take-up rate. It is not the partial incapacity benefit for which disabled people and their organizations have long been pressing and indeed is a nil-cost measure. In fact, as the Minister revealed to me in a parliamentary written answer last Friday, the Government actually expect to save £10 million on their new benefit by 1992–93.
The choice that Ministers have made in proposing the new credit, when combined with proposals from the National Audit Office to persuade doctors to stop providing sick notes, looks very much like an attempt to ensure that disabled people earn their poverty. Without action to introduce a minimum income, to enforce a

proper employment quota scheme, to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, and radically to improve employment services and training, job opportunities for disabled people will remain the scandal they are today.
Another "generous" new benefit in "The Way Ahead" is an age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance. But the older the disabled person, the less he or she receives. People under 40 will get £10 week, those over 40 an extra £6.20; but the over-50s will receive only £3.10 and the over-60s nothing at all.
Ministers claim that the net cost of "The Way Ahead"—billed in advance as a major new deal for the disabled that
looks forward to the 21st century
—is £300 million. That compares with tax cuts of £1·9 billion, in a single Budget, for the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. Virtually seven out of eight disabled people will get nothing from the Government's proposals. Many will lose and, as we have seen, even severely disabled pensioners are ignored.
To help pay for this "new deal" other benefits will disappear. Savings from benefits that the Government intend to scrap will eventually far outweigh the cost of the pathetically modest new benefits in "The Way Ahead". In fact, the Disability Alliance estimates that the Government will more than break even on their proposals even in the short term. I have never known organizations of and for disabled people to be more united in their criticisms of Government policy. Those organizations include the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Spastics Society, Mencap, the British Council of Organizations of Disabled People, DIG and Age Concern among hundreds of others.
I know the Minister shares my deep respect, and that of others on both sides of the House, for the judgment, knowledge and fairness of Peter Large of DIG. Very few people are more qualified than him to judge any Government's record or rhetoric on disability. His view of "The Way Ahead" is that it is
nothing but a narrowing stony ledge
and he adds that:
The future promises to be a worrying mess.
As for Ministers' claims about bringing some coherence into cash provision for disabled people, Peter Large's study of the proposals leads him to conclude that ministerial
talk about a more coherent system of benefits is a sign of delirium.
Those withering criticisms, from one so well qualified to judge the Government's document, should surely now make social security Ministers see the urgency of a total re-think of their proposals. The Government must also recognise the importance of an urgent response from Ministers other than those from the Department of Social Security to the OPCS reports.
Apart from the perfunctory references in the "The Way Ahead" to some other policy areas, the Government's response to the reports from the OPCS has so far come only from social security Ministers. However, important issues are raised by the reports that affect other Departments. Those issues have not been addressed and that points to a disturbing lack of co-ordination in Whitehall.
When will the Department of Employment respond in detail to the reports? With less than a quarter of firms satisyfing their 3 per cent. quota obligations and the


employment service stating that work with disabled people is of very low priority, will the Department now be enforcing the quota system and expanding the sheltered placement scheme to provide integrated work opportunities at all levels for disabled workers?
As suitable housing is the key to independence for large numbers of disabled people, and especially in view of the repeated cuts in provision of specially designed housing for them since 1979, will there be any response to the OPCS reports from the Department of the Environment? The Minister will know of my involvement in the making of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, giving rate relief on essential adaptations such as an additional ground-floor bathroom. This relief is now to disappear and Stephen Bradshaw, the director of the Spinal Injuries Association, has sent two examples of the effect. The first is that of Mr. and Mrs. D. Baron, a couple with a severely disabled son who live in St. Austell. After April they will be paying £900 in poll tax, an increase of £756 on their current rates. The second example is that of Mr. and Mrs. J. Sullivan of Thames Ditton, whose son is a paraplegic. They will have to pay £686·89 more after April.
Stephen Bradshaw's letter to me says:
We are concerned that the new tax, which does not apply to people living in residential homes, runs counter to the Government's proposals for care in the community. With one hand it purports to encourage disabled people to move into the community and with the other it imposes a disincentive.
Are not the cases that he sent me—and countless more could be cited—proof positive of the need for a full and urgent response from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the OPCS reports?

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is considerable confusion among disabled people in Newport with regard to the poll tax and the rebate system? He will be aware that the Government have engaged in a £4 million television and newspaper campaign advertising the rebate scheme. However, that has caused much confusion in Newport because the scheme applies only to England and the fact that separate arrangements apply for Wales appears only in tiny print. In Newport people read the national newspapers and they also watch English television and they become confused by what they see and read about the scheme. Surely they have enough to put up with with their disabilities.

Mr. Morris: I am familiar with the effects of the problems that I have been detailing in his constituency as in all parts of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is aware of my special link with Newport as patron of Action Aid in his area, which does such excellent work for disabled people. I am assured that organisations of disabled people are trying their best to emphasise to the Secretary of State for the Environment that he should respond—having regard in particular to the findings of the OPCS—to the effect of his policies in increasing poverty among disabled people.
What consideration has been given to the reports by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office? Will they be making any response? Again, will there be a considered response to the reports from the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Is he aware of the mounting concern among disability groups that provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 will halt further progress towards the integration

of disabled pupils into mainstream schooling as envisaged by the Education Act 1981? Will self-governing schools be required to make adequate provision for disabled pupils?
The special health needs of disabled people are also important. We now have conclusive facts about the extra calls they, compared with other people, have to make on the National Health Service. A response from the Department of Health to the OPCS reports is made all the more urgent by its legislation on the future of the Health Service and of community care. The Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes argues that, unless adequate funding is made available, carers will remain a low priority for hard-pressed local authorities faced with a growing demand from the increasing numbers of elderly and highly dependent people living in the community. How is the Minister responding? The Government must also know that many local authorities, owing to lack of resources, now have to choose not only which of their discretionary powers to use under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil. Is that not cause for deep concern?
In regard to the Department of Health's responsibilities, I take this opportunity also briefly to raise the plight of people who have become infected with AIDS as a result of routine blood transfusions. The House knows that people with haemophilia who contracted the virus in the course of NHS treatment are receiving ex-gratia payments of £20,000 each. It is not enough, but even that inadequate sum is denied to people who become infected by blood transfusions. They have exactly the same claim to compensation and should not be told to seek justice through the courts. Thirteen of them have already died, and others will die before there is any prospect of a court settlement. For them justice, if any, will be posthumous, and that is not justice at all. My calculation of the cost of giving equal treatment to these other victims of a killer disease is £2 million. Is that too much for the Treasury to find in the cause of elementary justice?
In sharp contrast to the Government's indifference to the views of disabled people about their policies, we have held a number of consultative conferences with them. We have made it clear that their claims are among our highest priorities. We are pledged to introduce a comprehensive disability income to meet the extra costs of disabled people of all ages whose disability is assessed at 40 per cent. or more. By that and other measures we shall build on the achievements of the last Labour Government who, by the introduction of four new cash benefits for disabled people, gave unprecedented new help.
We shall increase the severe disablement allowance to the full basic invalidity benefit rate for all recipients. We also intend to introduce a carer's benefit, payable at the full basic pension rate, for people who, owing to the care they provide, cannot take paid employment. All that present Ministers plan to do is to reverse the appalling effects of their Social Security Act 1986, which actually cut benefits for carers on income support.
Among our other commitments is one to make discrimination against disabled people illegal. It is a commitment that their organisations see as essential to the achievement of full and equal citizenship for some 14 per cent. of the British people. We could have led the world in outlawing discrimination, as we did in 1970 by legislating on access to buildings, if this Government had acted on the report in 1982 of the Committee on Restrictions Against


Disabled People which I, as Minister for the Disabled, appointed in 1979. Now we trail behind other countries, not least the United States.
The message from this Government is unmistakable: only an alternative Government will address the poverty and other problems of disabled people so starkly portrayed by the surveys commissioned by Conservative Ministers. They have the resources to do what the findings of their surveys now demand. I say again that the problem is one not of resources, but of political will and priorities. Our priorities are clear: the present Government's lie elsewhere.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the fact that social security expenditure for long-term sick and disabled people has virtually doubled in real terms since 1979, to a total of over £8 billion a year; notes with approval the greatly improved coverage of disability benefits associated with this achievement, which has increased the number of Mobility Allowance recipients from 95,000 to 615,000, the number of Attendance Allowance recipients from 265,000 to 795,000, and the number of Invalid Care Allowance recipients from 5,000 to 110,000; and welcomes the Government's proposals for further improvements, involving net additional expenditure rising to some £300 million in 1993–94, to help some 850,000 long-term sick and disabled people by measures which include increased premiums in income-related benefits for both disabled adults and disabled children, a new premium for carers, the extension of Attendance Allowance to disabled babies and to people who are terminally ill, the extension of Mobility Allowance to those who are both deaf and blind, increases in Severe Disablement Allowance focused especially on those disabled from birth or early in life, improved coverage of help with the extra costs of disability through a new Disability Allowance, and the introduction of a new Disability Employment Credit to assist and encourage those disabled people who can and wish to work.
I am delighted that we are having this debate today. I approach it with no feeling of backwardness; rather, it is with relish that I take on the other side of the House in a debate about disability. That is not to say that I do not hope that at the end of the day there will be a feeling within the House as a whole about the needs of disabled people and about the necessity to make all society more aware of those needs, as well as of the ability of disabled people to make a greater contribution in the future to society as a whole and to achieve greater independence and control over their own lives.
Despite what we heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), we on this side of the House have no reason at all to be ashamed of our record in meeting the needs of disabled people. The last 10 years have seen major advances in provision for disabled people in this country, and I am confident that, so long as we keep a Conservative Government, the same will apply to the next 10 years.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the mobility allowance, which was being introduced at snail's pace by the Labour Government, was enhanced by the Conservatives when we got back into office; that we introduced attendance allowance; that we improved the coverage of invalid care allowance; and that we replaced the old non-contributory invalidity pension with severe

disablement allowance, which is a much more generous benefit. These advances have made a real impact on the lives of disabled people over the last 10 years.
Today I do not want to talk just about benefits. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman properly made the point that disabled people need services, that they need the work of other Departments and of voluntary organisations to enhance the quality of their lives. But it would be wrong of me as a Minister in the Department of Social Security not to begin by talking about benefits and not to get some balance into the argument.
When the Labour party left office it was spending £1·8 billion on the needs of the long-term sick and disabled. This year, the figure will be £8·3 billion—an increase of £4 billion in real terms. The right hon. Gentleman fairly makes the point that, of that £4 billion, £3·5 billion is due to increased take-up of benefits and £0·5 billion is due to the increased value of benefits. I have no shame about the increased take-up. When Labour was in office, there were just as many disabled people around, but more and more of them are now getting the benefits to which they are entitled. That is something of which we can be proud.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: Hon. Members know that on such occasions I normally give way, but Mr. Speaker has imposed a tight timetable.
Let me state the comparison in another way. As I said in winding up on Monday night, over its period of government—talking in constant money terms—the Labour party increased expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled by £220 million a year. During our period of office, it has been increased by £370 million a year. Invalidity benefit, which went to 600,000 people, now goes to virtually 1·2 million. Severe disability allowance, or its predecessor, went to 150,000; now it goes to 265,000. Attendance allowance was going to 265,000; now it goes to virtually 800,000. The number of people in receipt of mobility allowance has gone up from 95,000 to 615,000. So we have made tremendous advances in take-up. In other words, we are getting through to the people who really need help. This record is substantial. It represents a sustained provision of extra resources for the long-term sick and disabled under this Government.
But I am conscious that, despite this, and indeed perhaps sometimes because of the changes that we have made year by year, the balance and structure of disability benefits was less than satisfactory. That is why we commissioned the surveys of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The OPCS carried out four surveys, leading to six reports. It really was the most comprehensive survey exercise ever carried out. Unlike the Amelia Harris survey, which was commissioned by the Labour Government, it covered the whole spectrum of disability.
It included sensory and mental impairment, as well as the physically handicapped; it included people in their own homes, as well as those in institutions; and it included children as well as adults. We have considered carefully the findings of the OPCS reports. Unlike the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who made allegations, we have listened to the representations and submissions of a considerable number of disability organisations. My right


hon. Friend and I have met the Disability Benefits consortium to listen to its ideas and concerns, and we have now brought forward our proposals.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: As I have said, Mr. Speaker has imposed a very tight timetable, and I should like to get on.
We brought forward our responses. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we envisage a three-stage progress. In October, he made an announcement about annual uprating. He also announced the increase in real terms in the disability premium for adults; the doubling of the premiums for disabled children, thereby giving extra help to about 20,000 families; extending attendance allowance to disabled people and to babies under two; making attendance allowance available without the normal six-month waiting period for the terminally ill; extending mobility allowance to deaf and blind people; improving incentives for rehabilitation for employment by increasing the earnings disregards; and introducing the carer's premium into the system, thus helping about 30,000 carers in society.
Those important changes were widely welcomed. I remember watching Opposition Members' faces as my right hon. Friend announced the proposals and the gloom and doom with which they regarded those considerable advances in meeting the needs of disabled people.
Looking ahead into the longer term, we set ourselves three strategic aims in formulating our proposals. They were to improve the coverage of help available for the extra costs that disability can bring to those of working age and below, to improve the balance of benefits available to disabled people who are unable to work, in particular to do more for those who are disabled at birth or early in life, and to help disabled people who are capable of and wish to work, and to make it easier for them to get and to keep jobs.
The steps that we are taking to provide extra help by the autumn of this year for about 500,000 disabled people and their carers through the existing benefit system will come into effect soon. The Social Security Bill which received a Second Reading on Monday will carry forward the change to make attendance allowance available without any waiting period for the terminally ill.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) raised several issues. I make it absolutely clear that the terminally ill will get attendance allowance for the rest of their lives. The qualification will be a prognosis that life is unlikely to last longer than six months, hut, if people live beyond six months, they will continue to get attendance allowance for the rest of teir lives.
It will be possible for a third party to apply on behalf of a terminally ill person. I understand the hon. Lady's worry that it might not be sensitive or sensible to tell a person, or even his or her close family, that he or she is terminally ill. In those circumstances, it will be possible for an application to be made on behalf of a disabled person.
This is a sensitive matter. We consulted widely and carefully among the organisations most directly concerned with the terminally ill. I believe that they are satisfied with the arrangements that we are making.
This important measure honours a commitment that we made to the House last summer, and it will be much

more than just the extra payment of £37.55 in attendance allowance. Extra payments of invalid care allowance will also be payable, as will extra payments of income support or housing benefit via disability premium and the carer's premium. The Bill will also introduce an age-related addition to the non-contributory severe disablement allowance at the same rates as the present additions paid with contributory invalidity benefit.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe understands the position, but did not quite state it correctly. It is not the age of a person at the time which governs the amount of benefit or enhancement that he gets under the age-related additions: it is the age at which that person is disabled. It is part of the strategy to try to shift the balance of extra help to those who are disabled earlier in life and do not have the ability to build up contributory benefits or occupational benefits and savings in their working lives. We are doing that in precisely the right way.
The current Bill contains two other measures that arise directly from our determination to improve the structure and balance of benefits for the disabled. I refer to the reduced earnings allowance provision and the additional pensions provision. I do not want to go into them in detail today. We will be locked in conflict in Committee in the not-too-distant future. and there will be ample time for discussion.
I now refer to the third phase of the programme that we set out in "The Way Ahead". We intend to legislate at the earliest practicable opportunity to introduce the disability employment credit and the disability allowance. I told the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that I would refer to this matter.
The hon. Gentleman wrote an article in The Sunday Times suggesting that, by extending the entitlement to mobility allowance and attendance allowance, the Government were somehow to pay all those in receipt of those benefits at a lower level. That is quite untrue. We will introduce a new lower level of benefit for mobility allowance and for attendance allowance. Those at the top two levels of attendance allowance and mobility allowance will continue to qualify and will be uprated in the normal way. We are taking the threshold further down the scale of disability, so that more people will be able to qualify at the lower level. It is important that that is clearly understood.
The allowance was explained on Monday. I do not want to go into it in detail, except to say that it is important that, when we come to the allowance, which will effectively combine and extend the mobility and care elements of support for disabled people, we aim to improve the assessment—

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No, I will not give way, for the reasons that I explained earlier.
The assessment and adjudication procedures should also be simplified and speeded up. The other new benefit of disablement employment credit will make it easier for disabled people to take and keep work.
As I said, I speak first as the Minister for Social Security with responsibility for the disabled, but it is absolutely clear that the Government as a whole are committed to improving the lives of disabled people. I do not want to weary the House by stating the work of every single Department, but, in my role as Minister, I keep in close touch with other Departments and occasionally snap at


their heels to make sure that they respond to the pressures in society. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe did the same when he was in office. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of employment and action to get people into work and enable them to carry out their employment in a satisfactory manner.
Last year, the Department of Employment spent about £350 million helping people with disabilities to obtain and to keep work. Jobcentres and disablement resettlement offices are increasingly successful in their job of finding work for disabled people. Over the past five years, the figure has increased from 62,000 to 77,000 last year. The Disablement Advisory Service tells employers about the facilities that need to be provided for disabled people. The code of good practice and the sheltered employment placement schemes are all increasingly successful.
Special schemes, too, are run by the Department of Employment and its agencies. They provide special aids and equipment for disabled people to work in employers' premises or at home, help to adapt to an employers' premises if necessary, personal readers, and assistance with fares if people find it difficult to get to work. The job introduction scheme enables employers to give trial employment to people with disabilities. All that is important work and aids disabled people in acquiring the independence that many of them want.
I have time to mention only a few other things done by other Departments. All hon. Members recognise that, in recent years, the Department of Transport has made important advances in bus, coach, air and taxi travel. The Motability scheme has been a tremendous success. Last year, 31,000 disabled people had access to vehicles under that scheme.

Mr. Michael Meacher: They did not have access to rail services.

Mr. Scott: British Rail is gradually extending its stations and platforms on main-line routes to make them more accessible to disabled people.

Mr. Robert Hayward: And its carriages.

Mr. Scott: And its carriages, too. There has been a tremendous improvement on the primitive facilities that existed 10 years ago. Towards the end of last year, I re-established the Access Committee for England. We know about the still unsatisfactory access to many public buildings and facilities. I want to make more rapid progress in that matter.
The Department of the Environment will publish a consultation paper soon on building regulations as they affect access for the disabled. Last September, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts launched ADAPT in co-operation with the Carnegie foundation, to improve access to entertainment and artistic facilities. Also, I announced £500,000 for the British Paralympic Association, to encourage sport among the disabled, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is keen on developments in that area. Other Departments are playing their part in enhancing the quality of life for the disabled.
I am delighted that it was possible in the Children Act 1989 to make it clear beyond peradventure that local

authorities can pay for young people to receive the benefits of conductive education in Budapest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we are making a contribution to the new national institute in Budapest, so that, in the long term, British children can be educated there and British adults can be trained as conductors. In due course, we shall have a facility for conductive education operating effectively in this country.
I am anxious, as are my colleagues in the Department of Health, that we do not simply cope with the disabled but try to prevent disability. Increasing resources are being made available for that purpose.
In the few minutes remaining to me, I shall respond to some of the worries that have been expressed in respect of our response to the OPCS surveys and to the situation as it currently affects the disabled.
The independent living fund was perhaps not as well received as it should have been, but it now has widespread acceptance. It has helped some 3,000 severely disabled since it was launched. Its budget was doubled for the current year and will be doubled again for the forthcoming year. With the introduction of new arrangements for community care in 1991, there may be some overlap between the provisions of the independent living fund and the work of local authorities in producing community care packages. I shall shortly be considering with the fund's trustees the role that they envisage for it in the new circumstances, and I shall make an announcement in due course. I pay the warmest tribute to the fund's trustees and to its staff, who respond flexibly and helpfully to the needs of a wide range of disabled people.
One of the criticisms of our proposals is that they do nothing to help disabled pensioners, but that is far from true. We certainly have not ignored them. The removal of the mobility allowance upper age limit will benefit many disabled pensioners, as will attendance allowance for the terminally ill. Our October package of about £200 million will provide extra help for 2·6 million more pensioners. Our social security expenditure on the elderly as a whole has increased by 25 per cent.—a real increase of £5 billion.
I acknowledge that there was anxiety among organisations representing the blind, but the new disability allowance should prove of considerable help to many blind people. The severe disablement age additions will assist those who were blind at birth or who became blind in their early life. The employment credit should allow more blind people to work, and the mobility allowance for the deaf-blind was widely welcomed, as were the increases in the adult and child disability premiums.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has asked particularly about what I call the Clarke Act. I think that everyone understands what I mean when I use that phrase, rather than refer to the legislation's full and rather cumbersome title.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As long as we are not talking about Mr. Kenneth Clarke's acts.

Mr. Scott: I think that the House knows which Mr. Clarke is meant.
Sections I , 2 and 3 of that Act are the most complex and expensive, and represent the main outstanding business to be implemented. Within a matter of weeks, we shall start consultations with local authorities on implementing those three sections, which I hope the House will widely welcome.

Mr. Clarke: The Mr. Clarke to whom the Minister refers is certainly not the same man who is currently mentioned in BMA advertisements. However, although the Minister's intentions are not in doubt, history supports the view that there remains doubt about whether the Treasury will allow the Minister to go as far as the House would wish. On 11 April 1989, the Minister said that section 11 of the 1986 Act, dealing with reports to the House, would be introduced shortly, but that has not happened. When will that section be enacted?

Mr. Scott: We are going out to consultation on that important issue. Obviously we shall discuss the level of resources that is necessary. We shall also have to examine—as did my Health Department colleagues in relation to section 7, which they decided was overtaken by other arrangements—the interaction of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act with the new arrangements for community care. At least the process has begun, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with that.
It has been alleged that there is no new money in the package. There is new money available, amounting to £88 million in 1990–91, £141 million in 1991–92, £214 million in 1992–93, and £300 million in 1993–94. That is real new money. Two of the present occupants of Labour's Front Bench have served in government and know perfectly well that the first things that confront Ministers when they return from their summer holidays are the public expenditure estimates and the Autumn Statement. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was able to persuade our Treasury colleagues to produce that new money, it was genuinely new money and quite properly included in the Autumn Statement. I give the firm and clear undertaking that it is new money.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe concluded by describing Labour's plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) once said, one can promise the earth, and then one delivers the IMF. The cost of the programmes to which Labour has committed itself must be at least £3 billion. Frankly, Labour would never be able to afford that sum even if it got into office. The Opposition are arousing expectations among the disabled that they will never be able to fulfil if re-elected.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Members can do in their own constituency, the House has an important role to play in increasing awareness of disability and promoting a greater understanding of the needs and abilities of the disabled.
A cause was recently launched that some may feel is on the verge of disability, but which relates to a condition that causes tremendous frustration and bitterness among those who suffer from it. I refer to the new dyslexia awareness campaign. I hope that greater awareness of that condition and of the need for diagnosis, assessment and treatment as early as possible in life will remove a great deal of the frustration from those who suffer from that distressing condition. I commend that campaign, as I commend all the campaigns run by the large number of voluntary organisations—many of them generously supported by Government money—to increase awareness of the needs, abilities and potential of the disabled.
Society as a whole must also play a part. I freely acknowledge that this debate in Opposition time will serve to create greater awareness of the matters about which I have spoken. I commend the amendment to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It should be clear to the House that, unless remaining speeches are brief, a number of right hon. and hon. Members wishing to participate will be very disappointed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not want to generalise, but I wish to draw the House's attention to a certain section of disabled people, as I have done on many previous occasions.
Since 1982, I have presented five Bills on behalf of mineworkers suffering from the dreaded disease emphysema. On each occasion, they went the way that I expected them to go, like most ten-minute Bills. That has not helped the miners in my constituency.
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reported recently, after in-depth investigations. It was unable to recommend that the disease should be prescribed, saying that there was insufficient evidence. I have always refuted that, because the evidence is there in the mining communities, where miners spend their lives in agony and their families suffer. I rely not only on that information, but on in-depth, learned research from the past 20 years. I have presented 20 learned papers to the House. On two occasions I drew the attention of the House to reports in The Lancet that stated that miners are 10 times more likely to get emphysema than other members of the public.
Unfortunately, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council seems to think' that there should be absolutely implicit evidence—which it will never get in a miner's lifetime. The evidence that I have presented, after in-depth, learned research, is as much as we shall get. Miners are suffering and anyone can see that—if they wish to.
In the Pontefract area, between 1982 and 1986, when I first started this campaign, there were 634 deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is realistic to think that, four years on, the figure will now have doubled. From hospital records, we know that 80 per cent. of the 1,200 people who died from the disease were mineworkers.
I was interested to hear the Minister's reference to terminal illness. I should like him to define, as far as possible, what he meant by that. In my view, mineworkers who are suffering from this terrible disease are terminally ill. Evidence shows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that mineworkers are suffering. There have been recent campaigns by local newspapers to draw the House's attention to the state that miners are in—for example, in the Yorkshire Evening Post and the Pontefract and Castleford Express. Men have to live a lifetime in oxygen masks as a direct result of their work in the mining industry.
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has followed a practice of taking evidence every 10 years, but that has not applied since 1973. Before the 1988 report, the last time that it took evidence was in 1974—a gap of 15 years. In the latest report it says that it will continue to monitor the situation. It said the same in the 1973 report, and since that time thousands of men have died in agony, their families watching in agony, without compensation or financial assistance.
It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, in recent times, doctors sometimes recommend that these men—used-up men in some cases—should move


to accommodation where solid fuel is not burned because it can affect their chest. However, if their families apply to move to a new tenancy, they are in danger of losing their concessionary allowance because of present British Coal policy. They have to decide whether to move to more suitable accommodation, on the recommendation of the doctor, and lose the allowance. Some of the old lads cannot afford to do it. Some of those people cannot lift a cup of tea to their lips. Once, they were strong and able miners. I could get emotional in the House tonight, because I have seen the condition of some men deteriorate.
The evidence is irrefutable. I hope that the Minister will consider two points. First, will he request the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council not to wait another 10 years while 1,200 more people die? If it does that, the problem will be solved—they will all be dead and it would be bordering on criminal to allow that to happen.
Secondly, will the Minister define "terminally ill"? I suggest that men such as Bert Lee and George Hartnell, who are obliged to live in oxygen masks, and others like them, are terminally ill. I hope that the Minister will be able to identify whether such cases will be covered in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which may increase benefits.

Sir David Price: Severe disability is a condition so profound and so complete in its consequences that it amounts to a different way of life, albeit an enforced way of life. Nobody chooses to be disabled.
My only reason for speaking this evening is that I have had some personal experience of sharing that way of life, and that may assist the House to advance public policies that may ameliorate the hurt and the frustrations of disability.
I need not remind the House that disability comes in many different forms, both of mind and body. It is even more important to remember that every disabled person is different and requires different remedies and understanding, not only because his disabilities are different but because, by virtue of being a human being, each disabled person is unique.
One does not cease to be a human being when one becomes disabled. Yet I detect that some people approach the disabled as if they were members of a different species. The disabled become objects of their good works, but are not treated as real partners in the human adventure.
The biggest hurt that can be done to the disabled is to patronise them. At times, I am tempted to adopt the famous outburst of Shylock on the condition of the disabled. I shall forbear tonight because you asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I commend that famous passage to hon. Members.
Disability has been with us since the beginning of time. It is part of the human condition, and there is nothing new about it. What is relatively new is society's recognition of disability, and its determination to do something about it.
In the 36 years in which I have been a Member of the House, considerable progress has been made in the development of public policies towards the disabled, but a great deal still needs to be done. It is only fair to recognise that progress has been made. I am reminded of the words of Arthur Clough:

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
When I first came to the House there was no attendance allowance, no mobility allowance, no severe disablement allowance and no orange badge. The tide is coming in, and it is in favour of the disabled. If we are to develop more effective policies, however, we must be able to assess better both the scale and the degree of disability in our nation. We must therefore be grateful to the OPCS for the massive survey that it completed last year. Those reports provide ample statistical raw material on which to work, but we must interpret that material carefully and correctly.
The OPCS identified at least 6·5 million disabled people. That is a daunting figure, but we should remember that the OPCS used a relatively low threshold of disability. If we exclude the adults on the lowest two points of the severity scale, the number becomes 4 million—although that is a daunting enough statistic. My particular concern is with the 1·5 million who fall into the four most severe categories. Their disabilities are so severe that their ways of life are very separate and distinct from those of the generality of their fellow citizens. In our desire to help all disabled people, we must not lose sight of the needs of the most severely disabled, and especially those of the quarter of a million or so in the top category. Our priorities must be related to the severity of the disability.
Most disabled people live in the community, as they always have. That applies even to the OPCS's category 10, the most severely disabled, of whom over half live in the community. It therefore follows that we should consider the Government's two recent documents, "Caring for People" and "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", together. An hour or two ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I made a start on that in the Select Committee on Social Services.
The idea of care in the community, which is very much the flavour of the moment, means different things to different people. The Select Committee considered the matter in depth in 1984 and 1985, with reference to mentally ill and mentally handicapped adults, and came up with some firm guidelines. In my view, those guidelines apply to all disabled people—indeed, to all clients of care in the community. The Committee concluded:
Appropriate care should be provided for individuals in such a way as to enable them to lead as normal an existence as possible, given their particular disabilities, and to minimise disruption of life within their community".
The House will observe that that definition, although imperfect, has certain immediate policy consequences. First, it must mean providing for the basic needs of those affected by physical or mental disabilities—as far as possible—in ordinary domestic housing, in ordinary occupational settings and through the use of ordinary recreational amenities.
Secondly, the fact that clients are affected by physical or mental disabilities means that they have special needs of different kinds, caused by a wide variety of illnesses and disabilities, which must lead to individual and highly personalised solutions rather than general ones.
Thirdly, care must be provided in many different locations: there is no reason to exclude hospitals or institutions, especially when asylum is needed.
Fourthly, the assessment of those special needs, the provision of skilled treatment and care and, where


necessary, the allocation of appropriate special environments is the statutory responsibility of both the local health and the social services authorities. Although my right hon. Friends intend to place the main responsibility with the social services departments, the role of the primary health care team should not be diminished or bypassed. I still regret the fact that family practitioner committees have not been merged with district health authorities in England; in Scotland things are managed better. We must also have an "open door" policy, especially for the mentally ill and the psychogeriatrics.
It is clear that a common feature of all disabled people is the financial disadvantage from which they suffer. They cannot earn what they could be earning if they were not disabled; furthermore, additional costs are imposed on them as a result of their particular disabilities. The OPCS has made a brave attempt to identify that gap in income. It has demonstrated that, at 1988 prices, the average disabled person—although we know, of course, that no one is average—was nearly £40 a week worse off than an able-bodied person. Its research also shows that that gap in income was much greater for those under pension age than for those who were retired.
I welcome the efforts that the Government are making to bridge the gap: in themselves those efforts are inadequate, but the Government are moving in the right direction. I must tell my right hon. Friends, however, that I shall continue to press them to do more to improve financial benefits for disabled people. Like Oliver Twist, I shall always be there with my bowl asking for "second helpings" for the disabled.
There is also the problem of private carers, who are essential to a severely disabled person's way of life. As I have spoken about them and their needs at length in previous debates, I shall not repeat tonight what I consider to be telling arguments. I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged the importance of the private carer; I am simply disappointed that they have proposed so few new measures to assist them. Let me remind my right hon. Friends of a chilling fact identified by the OPCS: two thirds of the 1·75 million live-in carers receive no help from any of the statutory services. We really must do better than that.
When tonight's debate is over, the vast majority of us will go home and, for tonight, leave all the problems of disability behind us. If we were disabled, however, we should not be able to take off our disability like an overcoat when we arrived home. There is no rest or holiday from disability; disabled people cannot even take a sabbatical. That is what I mean when I say that disability is a way of life, and the understanding that it is a way of life—a disabled way of life—is the key to better and more effective public policies for the disabled.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Although the debate focuses principally on benefits, I feel that chapter 8 of "The Way Ahead"—relating as it does to other services for the disabled and those with similar difficulties—is, in its way, as important as questions relating directly to benefits. I hope that the Minister will not allow matters to rest as they are, but will redouble his efforts to ensure that the disabled have access to public buildings, the job market and transport systems. The work done in Scotland—especially by the Scottish Council on

Disability—is commendable, but the Government, working in concert with local authorities, could do much more to ensure that both private homes and public buildings are adapted to meet the needs of disabled people. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that happens in future.
In Kelso, in my constituency, disabled people must travel for long distances to use the specially-adapted toilets. A regional councillor told me that they are charged £5 for a key to give them access to a national system of public toilets for the disabled. I consider it entirely unnecessary to charge disabled people such sums for the use of facilities that they are bound to need when they are out and about, and I hope that such matters will not be far from the Minister's agenda.
The benefits for which "The Way Ahead" provides fall considerably short of what is needed. I do not underestimate the difficulties. I welcome the OPCS reports. We shall be able to draw on them in the weeks and months to come. They will inform our debates, which will be better for the information that the OPCS reports provide.
The Government's response has been niggardly in a number of respects. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will say at the earliest possible opportunity that "The Way Ahead" is not the last word. I agree that there is a difference between the machinery that is devised to deliver financial assistance to disabled people and the levels at which benefits are set. I accept that the framework must be right before we can deal with the levels of benefit, about which we might argue. However, we must devise a more comprehensive disability income scheme. "The Way Ahead" is a move in the right direction, with the new credit system and the new disability allowance, but the opportunity that the publication of the OPCS reports provides will not come again for a long time. We must seize it. We must consult the disability pressure groups and those who understand, from their direct personal experience, what the problems are and ensure that the machinery is right. Even if we cannot agree on the money that should be devoted immediately to the problem, the machinery must be right.
The publication of "The Way Ahead" must lead to real consultation. That does not mean that the Minister for Social Security just sits with his door open all the time, as he keeps saying. I am sure that his door is always open and that the central heating system in Richmond house ensures that he does not sit in a draught, but when people come through his door he must listen to them and take account of what is said to him so that the machinery is right and comprehensive and able to deal with the problems.
The existing system is complex. We must try to do away with the many anomalies. The amount of benefit varies, depending on the type of disability, the age at which the disability occurred and the national insurance contributions that have been paid. That leads to vast differences in the amount of benefit received, even though the problems that people have to overcome in their daily lives are much the same. The amount can vary by as much as £200. We must seize this opportunity to get rid of those anomalies. Opposition spokesmen will always argue that the amount of money that is devoted by the Government in the short term to the needs of the disabled is inadequate. A comprehensive system is needed. It will be a crying shame if we do not seize the opportunity that the OPCS reports provide to tackle the problem.
The Government have dealt only with the cost of attendance and mobility allowances. Apart from those costs, the need to have a carer and the need to obtain assistance in order to be mobile are urgent and must be provided for. If the Government intend to be fair to the disabled and to allow them to contribute to the life of their local communities, the additional costs that would allow them to do so must be met. They cannot run away from the fact that the disabled suffer from considerable disadvantages if they wish to participate in the life of their local communities.
As for the Government's plans for the elderly, we must not get into the habit of thinking that disability is a normal part of the aging process. It is not. Old age is not a disease. All too easily we slip into the way of thinking that because people are old it is natural that they should be disabled. That is an absurd assumption.
The three steps that the Government have announced for dealing with disability in the immediate future erect age hurdles in the case of some disabilities in a way that is unjustified and completely unfair. The severe disablement allowance levels are far too low. They should be increased at least to the level of the state retirement pension. That would help significantly the elderly who are also disabled.
As for carers, I have spoken to a number of pressure groups that represent the interests of carers. They believe that they have been left completely out of the proposals. The Minister could reasonably point to the £10 premium and to the other ways in which he intends to help them. He acknowledges that there is a problem. However, the carers feel that they have been let down. They were promised that the consultations that would follow publication of the OPCS reports would involve them closely. They are bitterly disappointed that little attention has been paid to their needs. I share their disappointment. The Government will have to return soon to the problem. Other hon. Members have referred to the difficulties that are experienced by carers. I am sure that the point will be returned to again later in the debate.
The carers' organisation has put forward a perfectly reasonable plan. It would lead to carers being recompensed. They are not looking for a real income. However, they do not want to be financially disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will consider commissioning research that is similar to one of the six OPCS studies. I should like him to examine the financial implications of the cost of caring. The information that is available to me does not enable me to judge how much it would cost to extend a flat rate, non-means-tested allowance to carers. It might amount to a considerable sum of money.
We may be unable immediately to remove age hurdles and to deliver financial assistance to carers. It is dangerous to refer to such changes unless we know how much money is involved. At the moment we do not know how much money is involved, nor does the Department. The OPCS reports have highlighted that problem. I hope that the Government will find an opportunity to remedy that omission.
We need to move as quickly as possible to a three-way financial package for the disabled. It will embrace, first, a pension for those who cannot work; secondly, an adequate partial capacity benefit for those who can work, but only

a little; and, thirdly, a full-costs allowance to recognise the additional costs incurred by disabled people because of their disability. If these benefits were set at adequate levels they would guarantee that the disabled would not be denied participation in the communities in which they live.

Mr. David Nicholson: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said about carers. The recognition of their role and the increased help that we are giving them featured in the Secretary of State's statement last autumn. Both sides of the House admire the Minister of State's effective concern for the disabled and particularly the position of carers, and I hope that he will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman at the end of the debate.
I was moved by the speech made by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), and I share his interest in the matter. My maternal grandfather, who died before I was born, suffered from similar problems because he was gassed in the first world war. I remember my mother telling me about the treatment and handling that he needed in the foggy, nasty autumn and winter weather that can occur near Manchester, where they lived. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to respond effectively to the hon. Gentleman.
So far, the debate has been reasonably bipartisan, but allegations about success, or the lack of it, under different Administrations have been made. Over the past 10 years, the Government have greatly improved care for the long-term sick and disabled. Total expenditure on cash benefits increased by almost 100 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1989. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the average annual real increase in spending on the long-term sick and disabled was £220 million under the Labour Government and has been £370 million during the 10 years of this Government.
These are important contrasts to bear in mind, although the money is being spent on more disabled people. We need to investigate why this Government have been so successful at drawing out people to claim these benefits.
We should not allow ourselves to be too gloomy, although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said in his final words. Seventy per cent. of disabled people told the second OPCS survey, published in November 1988, that they were satisfied with their standard of living. Only 8 per cent. of disabled householders said that they were getting into financial difficulties. However, most disabled adults do incur extra costs as a result of their disability, and we are grateful to OPCS for pointing that out.
The second report also stated that almost 70 per cent. of disabled adults were aged 60 or more, but that disabled pensioners enjoyed roughly the same level of income as other pensioners. It is important to remember that.
The Government have successfully increased provision for the social services, which is a local authority function. Funding for community care services has risen by 68 per cent. since 1979; capital expenditure on social services has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms in the same period.
Community services have been vastly increased. Since 1980, the number of meals on wheels delivered has risen by 11 per cent. and the number of home helps by 28 per cent. The number of field social workers has increased by 22 per


cent. and the number of those treated by district nurses by 14 per cent. Between 1978 and 1988, the number of places in residential homes for the mentally handicapped doubled from 14,000 to 28,500. Those are significant successes.
I am glad that the Government are continuing to give strong support to the voluntary sector. Grants to charities, as a result of tax incentives in various Budgets, have increased by 75 per cent. more than inflation since 1979.
Twenty or so years ago, I worked as a civil servant in the Department of Employment and I want to mention the success of the Department in assisting disabled people, particularly through employment training. Between 1984 and 1989 the number of people with disabilities who participated in the Department's training programmes rose from 10,500 to more than 44,000.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that certain transport facilities are helping disabled people. Certainly, British Rail has introduced facilities for the disabled at InterCity stations and on main line services, but at many stations, including at Taunton, there are still gruesome steps for disabled people to negotiate. I must pay tribute to British Rail. More than a year ago I took up a constituency case of a disabled person being brought down from London with helpers. On the previous journey there had been a mess-up and the person's disability had not been recognised, but as a result of my intervention excellent help was offered on subsequent journeys.
I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who cannot be here today, but who is interested in this subject. He is beginning a campaign to ensure that new homes take account of the needs of various minorities with disabilities. For example, many new homes are built with ridiculously narrow doorways that are extremely difficult for wheelchairs to negotiate.
Finally, I wish to refer to how the community charge will affect disabled people, a number of whom enjoyed some relief under the previous, property-related rateable system. Conservative Members must recognise that some will lose their relief and not have it replaced under the new individual, service-related system. I have corresponded about such cases in my constituency. We must, however recognise that disabled people on low incomes who qualify will receive generous rebates and favourable terms under the transitional arrangements, and for that we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
I want to repeat a point about pensions that I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before, but this time in the context of the disabled. It concerns the capital threshold, which has caused problems with rebates for community charge-paying pensioners. This applies particularly to disabled people who own sums of money. Some, for example, may have been badly injured in motor accidents and will thus have been paid—not necessarily large sums of compensation. We all agree that if someone has more than, say, £12,000, he should not qualify for assistance from other taxpayers; but many people hovering around the £8,000 limit do not qualify for housing benefit rebates under the present rules and will not qualify for community charge rebates. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to do more about that.
We must remember that disabled people often cannot take part in community activities for which the community charge will pay. We must, however, point out to them that

the charge will substantially fund education, social services, the police and fire services which all members of the community enjoy whether or not they are disabled. I hope that we shall be able to persuade more local authorities to improve access to libraries, swimming pools and other facilities so that disabled people can enjoy them.
I began by pointing out the Government's spending achievements over the past 10 years. Those successes were achieved on the back of major economic success. Only if we retain a Government who can continue this economic success will we be able to meet the high objectives that my hon. Friend the Minister has set himself.

Mr. Jack Ashley: We had a good debate on disablement on Monday. I do not propose to repeat my condemnation of the Social Security Bill, but I should like to consider some of the basic problems faced by disabled people. Their main difficulties are poverty, lack of rights, discrimination and unemployment. The Government have failed to tackle those problems effectively.
We all know that most disabled people are poor. The main source of income for 75 per cent. of them is state benefits. The income of the few who are employed is significantly less than that of able-bodied workers. The Government are at fault for not doing enough for disabled people. The average real value of benefits that disabled people receive has risen by less than 1 per cent. in the past decade, while the value of average male earnings has risen 36·5 per cent. That is a cause for shame and shows the Government's neglect of disabled people.
We need—and this has been spelt out time and again—a comprehensive disablement income, payable to all disabled people according to the severity of their disablement and not according to means.
As important as incomes are rights. The Minister for Social Security assured us that he is in the process of implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—the Tom Clarke Act, as we call it, which is a major measure on disabled people's rights which should have been implemented fully long ago.
With low incomes and few rights, it is not surprising that disabled people suffer discrimination. Judging from the discussions that I have had with many disabled people and their organisations, they are discriminated against every day of their lives. Discrimination severely affects disabled people. Government statements that there is insufficient evidence of discrimination are pure gobbledegook; I can testify to the damage that it causes. Disabled people are not allowed access to public buildings; they are not allowed to take holidays in the places where they want; they are sometimes not allowed into pubs and clubs; and they are not allowed jobs for which they are fitted.
Such discrimination against disabled people in the 1990s is appalling. How do we deal with it? We do so not by begging, pleading or urging but by demanding that they be given new rights under legislation. Such rights are given by most member states of the European Community. Last year, the United States' Senate passed a marvellous Bill giving disabled people entirely new rights. The United States is leading the world and is not allowing disabled people to be treated as second-class citizens. Those rights are tremendous advances on measures in other countries.


The Bill has outlawed discrimination against disabled people and protected them from discrimination in transport, employment, public accommodation, hotels, restaurants, shops, telecommunications and services provided by state and local government.
Why cannot Britain give such a lead instead of falling behind European Community countries and the United States? We have so often led the world in the past, but now we are not even following those countries. Whenever Bills have been introduced to outlaw not only general discrimination but unjustified discrimination, the Government have rejected them. I am sorry that the Government chose to do that, but I hope that the Minister for Social Security and his colleagues will change their minds.
Discrimination is most visible in the realm of employment. No fewer than 70 per cent. of Britain's disabled people of working age have no job. Evidence shows that many of them are unemployed because of discrimination.
The Minister will know—my political opponent but good friend the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) joins me in this—that the all-party disablement group has been anxious to preserve the quota system. For the past 15 years, we have opposed attempts by successive Governments to dismantle it. It is not a perfect system and we do not stick rigidly to it, but we insist that that legislative safeguard should remain in force and should be properly enforced and implemented. That is not being done at present, and we believe that the Government should pay far more attention to it. They should stop throwing permits around like confetti; the Labour Government also showered permits around like confetti. We should like to see the quota system enforced and a few prosecutions of bad employers. We should like Britain to follow the example of Germany, where a levy is imposed on employers who do not fulfil their quota. Those are reasonable demands to make. We are after jobs for disabled people.
My final point—I shall not keep saying that this is my final point—is that in seeking rights and opportunities for disabled people we must include those for whom care and support are vital. We should remember the case of Beverley Lewis, the deaf-blind woman who starved to death in appalling conditions. We must find out how and why that happened and how we can avoid such tragedies in the future. The only way of doing so is to hold a public inquiry. I hope that the Minister will agree to that. I hope that whoever replies to the debate will answer that point.
This is a package of constructive proposals and I offer it to the House with all good will. The proposals are designed to further the wellbeing of disabled people. If they are adopted, we will have gone a long way towards a better deal for the disabled. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will act on them.

Mr. John Hannam: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in the debate. I would like to have a fiver for every time I have followed him in similar disablement debates in the past 15 years. He has made some valid points with

which I agree. I welcome the opportunity to debate the needs of disabled people and I only wish that we had more time available to go into many more of the relevant issues.
I do not, however, welcome the terms of the Opposition motion, which fails to reflect the tremendous improvements that have taken place under this Government: nor does it reflect the opportunities that still lie ahead. When I first became involved in working with disabled people in the late 1960s, very few disability organisations existed and only a handful of benefits were available for people with handicaps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) pointed out, what a change has taken place in the intervening years.
The all-party disablement group recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. It is worth remembering that the group was established to help promote the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was piloted through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Since then we have seen disabled people brought out of the shadows and given their right to play a full role in our community. The Opposition have tried tonight—and I believe have failed—to make a case that under the present Government the disabled have suffered setbacks. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security pointed out in his excellent speech, that is plainly not the case, and the evidence speaks for itself in the huge increase in both the numbers of, and the cash benefits for, the long-term sick and disabled—somewhere near a 100 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979.
It is not just the increased benefits which are important, however—this is a thread running through a number of speeches this evening. The past 10 years have also seen welcome changes in attitudes towards disabled people. The accelerated moves towards independent living and community care have focused people's attention on the less fortunate who suffer from physical and mental handicaps. The historical myths associating inability with disability are gradually disappearing, especially when we think about historical figures who have suffered from such disabilities: people like Beethoven with his advancing deafness who nevertheless produced the Choral symphony, and Van Gogh who, while becoming increasingly mentally ill, painted masterpieces that are now worth a fortune. Last week I helped to launch the National Dyslexia Awareness Campaign in the company of a number of famous people who suffer from that learning handicap—Susan Hampshire, Duncan Goodhew, Beryl Reid and the architect, Richard Rodgers.
With all our involvement with various disabilities, it was therefore no surprise to me that the OPCS surveys showed that some 6·5 million people in this country suffer various degrees of handicap; but the fact that all this activity is taking place is surely a welcome sign that we are making constant progress towards the day when disabled people are not prevented from fulfilling their maximum potential by educational, financial, employment or access barriers.
Welcome changes have been achieved recently. I instance the launch of the accessible taxi, something that we are now taking for granted but which took many years of campaigning and design work to achieve. We have the extension of the mobility allowance to deaf-blind people, and many of us were involved in that campaign for some eight years. We have additional money for cochlear implants under the National Health Service, the carers'


addition in income support, and, the major landmark—and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, not yet fully implemented.
The current Session is extremely important for disabled people. The Government are legislating on community care and launching their proposals for community benefits; they will shortly publish the conclusions of the review of employment services for disabled people; and the House will soon have an opportunity to debate the recommendations of the Warnock report in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and the contributions that such research can make to the prevention of genetically-inherited disabling diseases. We also have the issue of student loans which gives us the opportunity to consider the amount of support currently given to disabled students in higher education.
It is important that these Bills should improve and facilitate the full integration of disabled people and continue to break down the barriers which still abound.
I would like to touch on some current issues and put forward what I hope will be constructive pointers for the future.
On disability benefits, although I accept that there has been some criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not going far enough towards the goal of a disablement cost allowance, I believe that he has made substantial progress, given the financial constraints on the economy. He personally exerted maximum pressure on the Treasury and gained enough resources to establish the basis for further progress over the coming years. There is now a political consensus across parties and the disablement lobby that independent living is good and should be welcomed and encouraged. However, it is vital that this move is accompanied by adequate income for disabled people, or we could face the same problems that we face with the discharged mentally handicapped in the community.
There is some concern that the White Paper's proposals fall short of the disablement cost allowance which has long been advocated, especially as they do not cover costs for such things as extra heating, laundry, diet and unprescribed medication and do not meet the needs of the severely disabled people, whose costs can be substantially greater than the OPCS reports showed. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has partially recognised that point in the White Paper by stating that supplementary arrangements may be necessary for a small group of disabled people. I hope that there will now be full consultation with the various organisations involved to make this work effectively and become reality.
I welcome also the introduction of a partial incapacity benefit through employment credit. I hope that it will be followed by full consultation with disability organisations to ensure that we get the system right. I welcome the increases to the severe disablement allowance, although they are not yet enough to achieve the level of the equivalent contributory benefit—invalidity benefit. We promised that in our 1979 manifesto, and I hope that it remains the Government's eventual aim. It would be helpful if this and other aims were spelt out, resources identified and target dates set for their achievement, otherwise there is a danger of piecemeal, ad hoc reform of the system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not intend or want that.
I mentioned the student loans legislation. I welcome the Government's commitment to wider access to higher education. Recently, the all-party group had a meeting with various bodies involved in education for the handicapped and with the education Minister. We pointed out that the current arrangements for disabled students were in desperate need of review and that there was a danger that the student loans proposals would inhibit access for disabled students. They face extra costs during their time at university or college and, of course, after graduation. That must be taken into account when judging the level of disabled students allowance and of loan repayments. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for the consultations that he has set up with disability organisations and for his commitment to review the disabled students allowance. It is vital that more consideration is also given to the proposals for a fourth access fund for disabled students.
We see evidence of the progress being made when we look at community care. The Government rightly recognise that community care services must be consumer-led and must, as they say in the White Paper,
respond flexibly and sensitively to individual needs…and allow a range of options for consumers".
Disabled people do not want to be passive recipients of services that are determined by local authorities. They want genuine consumer choice, like the rest of society. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 would help to ensure that that choice of service exists and that services are sensitive to the needs of disabled people, more appropriate and more effective. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act give disabled people the right to consultation and to appeal against decisions taken by the local authority as well as the right to have an advocate acting on their behalf—for example, a member of the family or a friend who can truly represent their interests in all their dealings with the local authority. That surely must be the best method of securing help that is appropriate, effective and efficient for the disabled person.
We have all had constituency examples of the wrong aids and adaptations being imposed upon people. A typical example that I came across recently was of an elderly woman who needed help to get around the house. A social worker insisted that she had rails put on most of the walls. Of course, that involved a great deal of expenditure and labour. The woman did not want that and, even with the rails, had great difficulty in getting around the house. Two months later, after much fuss, she was reassessed and given a simple zimmer walking frame, which was precisely what she wanted. All is well, but think of the waste of resources.
Another example of the sense of good advocacy involved a person who was caring for a disabled person. The carer asked for respite care to be provided. After a joint assessment meeting took place, it was found that all that was needed was a volunteer sitter on Saturday evenings. That was provided. Again there was a great saving of resources.
When I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at Question Time yesterday whether he accepted the need for the implementation of the important sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act, he promised. as has been reiterated today by my hon. Friend, a speedy review of those sections. I welcome that commitment. I am sure


that it pleased the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who must be frustrated at having given birth to a baby which is allowed only half the time.
The shortness of the debate prevents my mentioning many other disability issues such as the need for ring fencing of community care grants to local authorities. We have already heard on BBC "Panorama" one social services director stating that he was cutting services to the elderly disabled in order to provide social workers for child abuse cases. If we do not have ring fencing of resources for disabled people, the problem will get worse. The recent tragic case of the 23-year-old deaf-blind girl, Beverley Lewis, highlights the problem. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that there should be a public inquiry into that appalling case and its implications.
On the preventive side of disability, the embryology issue will be controversial and emotional. I am convinced that properly controlled and monitored research will help in future to detect specific disorders such as muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's chorea and some 50 types of severe congenital disease which one day may be detectable by pre-embryo screening. We shall be debating that in detail in a few weeks' time. I hope that hon. Members will study all the medical evidence carefully before casting their vote.
As someone who in my disablement work with Rehabilitation International has the opportunity to travel to many countries and talk to disabled people all over the world, I know how advanced we are in our provision for handicapped people. There is still a great deal to be done. I know that my right hon. Friends will continue to push the frontiers outwards, and I give them my full support this evening.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I appreciated very much some of the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). When, just over six years ago, I introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, I did not have a relative who was disabled. Since then, unfortunately, as many hon. Members know, I have lost my wife. She was disabled and worked in the House of Commons. If the Minister with responsibility for the disabled intends to co-ordinate his activities with those of other Ministers, he might start by approaching the Leader of the House to point out how difficult it is for disabled people who work in the Houses of Parliament to get from the office where they are working even for a bite of food or drink of coffee. There is much to be done for disabled people in the mother of Parliaments.
I have vivid memories of the way in which the Government deliberately thwarted the will of many people, probably a majority in the country, when I tried in November 1983 to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. I was told by the present Secretary of State, who at that time was in a more junior capacity in the Department, that all we needed was education and persuasion. All we needed was to persuade people to adopt a better attitude towards the disabled. All the evidence of the past six years proves that that is not the way to deal with the problem. The problem has not gone away. How

much have the Government spent on education and persuasion since November 1983 to convince people that they should have a proper attitude to disabled people?
The Spastics Society has produced two surveys that show that there is massive discrimination in employment against disabled people. The British Deaf Association published a similar report. We know from the evidence of many individual cases that people are discriminated against, either consciously or unconsciously, simply because they have a disability. We know from the labour force survey in the spring of 1988 that, whereas there was 7·9 per cent. unemployment among able-bodied people, 19 per cent. of disabled people of working age were jobless; 360,000 disabled people of working age were, at that time, unemployed, yet some 22 per cent. of them had either academic or vocational qualifications of at least GCE A-level standard, and many had university degrees.
Since 1986, employment for the disabled should have become easier, because there has been an increase in the use of microtechnology and, although we know that the Government have fiddled the statistics, we accept that there has been a reduction in the number of jobless in the country.
There are also demographic changes. We were told by the former Secretary of State for Employment that by the year 1995 there would be 500,000 fewer young people under 25 in the labour force, so there should be plenty of scope to provide employment for the disabled.
We know also that the Government have a campaign to promote a code of practice among employers to ensure that they do their job in taking on disabled people. However, only 120,000 copies of that code have ever been distributed, if the answer given on 13 November by the Secretary of State is correct.
The OPCS surveys have shown that, because of the experience of being discriminated against, many disabled people regard themselves as unemployable. They define themselves as unable to find work. That is because of their experiences of being constantly turned down in their search for a job. Has the Minister read the evidence in the Spastics Society's recent report? If he has, he must come to only one conclusion—that the Government have a responsibility, beyond any code of practice, to legislate against such discrimination.
The National Economic Development Office—a Government agency—published a document last year called "Defusing the demographic time bomb". It said that people with disabilities in employment are not being used to their full capabilities and that employers are doing relatively little to attract people with disabilities. Has the Minister taken cognisance of that evidence? Disabled people realise that the quota system is not being used properly. There have been only 10 prosecutions since the passing of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and few convictions. The total of fines for all the convictions in that time has been about £4,000.
The message has got across to disabled people. That is why whereas in 1978, the year before the Government came to power, 494,877 people registered under the 1944 Act, last year only 366,768 registered. Every single year since the Government came to office, fewer and fewer people have registered as disabled under the legislation. Yet discrimination continues, and the quota system is not enforced. That is not a reason for abolishing the quota system; it is a reason for enforcing and invigorating the system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the Federal Republic of Germany, which has a quota of 6 per cent. If employers do not abide by that system, they are charged a levy which provides revenue for training disabled people so that they can find employment. I should like to persuade my own party of the need for co-ordination such as the French have. In France, there is a Ministry to deal with all the problems of disabled people. I have certainly advocated that the Labour party should make such a system part of its policy. In France, the Government are to introduce an employment Bill that will include a 6 per cent. quota and a levy system, which will be in force by the time the single market is attained in 1992. As a matter of interest, the French Minister for the disabled, Michel Gillibert, was injured in a helicopter accident and is himself disabled, so he can bring his own experience to his post.
We undoubtedly need legislation. It is wrong when a paraplegic is refused access to a theatre. It is wrong when a mentally handicapped person is refused access to a hotel in a tourist resort. It is wrong when a student is refused access to a full course in a polytechnic because certain rooms are inaccessible to him. It is wrong when a deaf person is turned out of a public house because he is deaf and because someone he is with is using sign language. It is wrong when someone in a wheelchair is refused access to Wembley stadium to see the FA cup final even though he has a ticket. Such discrimination is wrong in every case, but unlike discrimination on grounds of sex or race, all those samples of discrimination are still legal. It shames our country that that should still be so.
What we need is an Act of Parliament to give legislative teeth to what is morally right, and to give disabled people real rights. Opposition Members will fight for their policy to outlaw discrimination against disabled people and to give disabled people the same liberties as those enjoyed by able-bodied people. But to disabled people I say that liberty must he fought for. We have liberty, but we were not born with it; we had to fight for it. I believe that disabled people must fight, and fight hard, to ensure that legislation is introduced. For our part, Labour Members can say that such legislation will be forthcoming after the next general election.

Mr. John Bowls: The debate is about rights and opportunities for disabled people, and I welcome the constructive suggestions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My experience of dealing with disabled people tells me that sometimes there is pain and sometimes there are tears, and that sometimes the tears and pain are shared by those who look after the disabled, but that the overwhelming impression that disabled people give is of courage, determination, cheerfulness and generosity of spirit.
I hope that, in battling for the disabled—rightly so—the Opposition will echo those qualities in their speeches. I sometimes think that, while the courage and determination may be there, the cheerfulness and generosity of spirit are not always evident.
As I have listened to the details of the Government's new benefits programme, which is bringing more help to the terminally ill, to the deaf-blind, to disabled babies and carers, and, coming soon, the additional support for the disabled at work, I have felt that I must tell the right hon.

Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that a little more generosity of spirit would be welcome. By all means let him criticise us for not going fast enough, but he should not say that we have not got anywhere, because the Government's record is there to be seen—for example, in the doubling in real terms of long-term sick and disablement benefits. The fact that three times as many people get attendance allowance and six times as many get mobility allowance is not so much a record to be proud of as a launching pad for further effort. That is the way I judge it, and I hope that Opposition Members will look at it in the same light.
Our commitment as we debate this issue, particularly hon. Members who are present tonight, is without doubt. In fighting for the disabled, we are trying to get across the message that to be disabled is not to be unable. Our task is to enable the disabled to participate in life to the full. When the Secretary of State for Employment talks, for example, about his ambition for a skills decade, I hope that he, and we, include the disabled in that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was spot on when he spoke about the need to enable the disabled to participate in job opportunities.
In enabling the disabled, we must consider the physical needs to help people to be independent; the caring needs so that people have folk to care for them when necessary; the mobility needs so that they can get around and make their way to work and leisure activities and so on; and the employment needs.
The physical needs involve all the housing adaptations to which hon. Members have referred, and I particularly support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) referred. Housing must be suitable for the disabled.
We must pay particular attention to the aids that are provided. I have previously referred to visiting the home of an old lady who was deaf. I found her watching television without the sound on. I asked her if she had a hearing aid and she replied that she had a hearing aid, but she also had arthritic fingers and could not turn up the volume on the set.
We must make sure that the aid is not just the cheapest but is appropriate to the case. It is a matter of horses for courses when giving support to disabled people, and I support everything that has been said about access to buildings and so on.
I support all the measures that are being taken for carers, but I ask the Minister to go even further, because the problems of many carers are not yet being met by society. I think of the young carer, for example, at school who is called from school to look after the mother who has collapsed at home. Such a carer cares without complaint, but that action can interrupt school and a natural youthful life. Such people should receive special attention. We need more respite schemes to enable people to have a break and to go back refreshed and dedicated to the task before them.
I welcome the mobility allowances and improved facilities for access, including access to stations. I think of the many steps leading to the platforms at a station such as Clapham junction in my constituency.
On the issue of mobility, we could do more for the dial-a-ride system. The Minister should talk to his colleagues in the Government who are responsible for the allocation of resources to dial-a-ride so as not simply to


give more money to that scheme but to encourage the application of that money to schemes where the users have a bigger say in the sort of service that they wish to receive.
In the dial-a-ride scheme in Wandsworth, for example, 1,000 members make 15,000 journeys a year. One third of the people who use that service are wheelchair-bound and the others are disabled, frail or elderly. They choose to use one third of their journeys for shopping expeditions, one third to visit friends and one third for general outings—for example, to visit the hairdressers or the theatre. Seventy per cent. of their chosen journeys should be local and 30 per cent. should be more than five miles.
London Regional Transport stepped in and said, "That does not fit our pattern. Why should we allow Wandsworth to let its users have so many journeys over five miles? That is not the mould that we want, so they cannot have the extra bus that we are going to offer to all the other dial-a-ride users unless they meet our criteria." It should not be "our" criteria. It should not be criteria determined by the House or by the bosses of LRT—although I welcome what LRT does to support the service. The criteria should be determined by the users of the service. If they choose to have more longer journeys, so be it.
I have referred recently to training for employment. Disabled people have many opportunities to participate in the job world. Reference has been made to the shortage of people with skills. Many disabled people are unable to take up skilled positions because they need to acquire the skills—sometimes basic and sometimes advanced. Organisations such as Shared Community in my constituency have a tremendous record in helping people whose cases appeared hopeless to find and keep jobs. Training establishments need to be able to plan for the number of trainee places and that certainty has not always existed. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends can ensure that such a possibility exists.
With regard to job placing, many more employers should be told to have patience. Many disabled people will hold down a job in the long run, but they need a little more time to adapt. All too often, an employer will run out of patience and get rid of the disabled person, and bang goes yet another job opportunity.
I have outlined several areas in which the Government can offer more support. I believe that we are in a new world of public awareness about disability. There is more awareness of care, access, travel and employment opportunities. There are many opportunities for the disabled and also opportunities for the Government to build on their great success to ensure that the disabled have a full role to play in society and come as near as possible to the rest of us in enjoying life to the full.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: In the short time available to me, I want to refer to two specific constituency cases about which I have written to separate Government Departments. The cases illustrate the way in which the Government's policy fails to go far enough in offering practical support to disabled people to remain in their own homes while at the same time it actively encourages them

to give up their independence and enter institutional care. My constituents and I are very worried about that trend which has been evident over the past 10 years.
I want first to refer to the case of Mrs. Pauline Shaw. She is in her mid-40s and substantially handicapped by multiple sclerosis. Her husband Jim gave up work some considerable time ago to care for her full-time in their own home. Mrs. Shaw received occasional respite care at Pinderfields hospital—and recently that care was jeopardised by the threat of closure. She received visits from a district nurse to assist her bathing and toilet needs and also social work support. I emphasise that Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are fulsome in their praise for the staff who gave their support. However, that support was insufficient. It could not prevent Mr. Shaw's health being affected; ultimately, in the interests of his own health, he was advised to allow his wife to enter residential care.
That was the start of their problems. When she entered private residential care about 20 miles from Wakefield, where they had lived for some considerable time, she developed bed sores. Mr. Shaw, who had given his wife such good care for such a long period, moved her to a different home in a place called Barkston Ash, also some 20 miles from my constituency. Then they faced the financial problems arising from the fact that the benefits available to them were insufficient to meet the cost of the residential care that was required in her circumstances.
I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health asking for some top-up payments to enable this lady to be supported in residential care, on the basis that she required full-time nursing. The Minister replied saying that that simply was not possible.
My constituent Jim Shaw, out of his invalidity benefit and state pension of around £40 a week, is supplementing the fees involved in keeping his wife in residential care. He is now trying to move to the area where she is living. At present, he travels 40 miles each day, and that is costly for somebody on state benefits. He cannot get a council house in that area, because the Tory-controlled council has, of course, sold off all the council accommodation. That is the reality of the problems facing many disabled people.
Mr. Michael Frobisher is another constituent of mine. I raised this case during the debate on Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill because I am particularly concerned about it. This gentleman has suffered from multiple sclerosis since about 1970. He is in his early 60s. His wife Pat was a health visitor, but she gave up her employment four years ago to care for him. She has had support from a nurse and has had other domiciliary help. She had respite care for one week in six in the younger disabled unit at Pinderfields hospital, which was threatened not long ago with closure as a result of Government cuts.
Unfortunately, this was insufficient. It was not the level of care required by Mr. Frobisher, despite all the efforts that his wife put in. She says that, in 1988, she begged for more help from the health authority, but to no avail. Indeed, she collapsed in July 1989. Mr. Frobisher was then admitted to a private nursing home some 20 miles outside my constituency. This was the start of their problems. There was insufficient finance to pay £245 weekly, and the Frobishers have now had to sell the house to meet the fees. Once the fees have been paid, Mr. Frobisher has 5p a week left.
At Question Time on, I think, 27 November last, I raised cases such as that of Mr. Frobisher. The answer of


the Minister for Social Security was that he found nothing offensive in relatives helping with care costs. I do not think that I am alone in this place in finding it deeply offensive that somebody who has given care as extensive as that which has been given by this lady over so many years should have to sell her house in order to be able to meet the cost of her husband's care. I think that that is wrong, and I look forward to the Minister's reply to my direct communication to his Department about this case.
In my opinion, neither of the two constituents to whom I have referred should be in institutional care. That is the importance of this kind of case to tonight's debate. There are many thousands of similar cases throughout the country—people who are in institutional care simply because the necessary domiciliary support is not available to enable them to remain in their own homes with their families and communities, where I and they believe they ought to be. It is criminal that people who have cared for their spouses as Mrs. Frobisher and Mr. Shaw have done should be treated in this way, that because their needs are not being catered for at the local level they are suffering separation.
I stress that I am not criticising the local authority or the district health authority. The staff concerned, with the facilities available to them, have done their utmost to assist these individuals. What I am criticising is the lack of resources, both for the local authority and for the Health Service, to provide the kind of service that would enable those people to remain in their own homes.
The ultimate irony is that well over £200 of state funds is required to keep these people in institutional care. It is a fact, as the Audit Commission pointed out, that less than that amount, properly allocated for domiciliary services, would keep them in the community and in their own homes. All hon. Members believe that people such as Mrs. Shaw and Mr. Frobisher should be in their own homes and with their families. It is an appalling indictment of 10 years of Government policy on community care and the disabled that those people find themselves in institutional care 20 or 30 miles from where they have lived all their lives.

Mr. Tom Clarke: For the most part, this has been a constructive debate. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who described the rights of people with disabilities as unique. He was absolutely right. I am sure that hon. Members would wish to highlight the individual needs, rights and demands of people with disabilities and their carers. That is a big priority.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave a fine outline of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. So convincing was he that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rushed to the Chamber. Opposition Members welcome the Chancellor's presence. He is a former Minister with responsibilities in these matters. If the necessary political will exists in the Treasury, we can do a great deal for disabled people. In particular, we can implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 because the good will that the Minister for Social Security introduced into the debate might be shared by the Chancellor, and, if that good will is matched by political will in the Treasury, we can make real progress.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to good will and political will, he should clearly spell out that the sum involved is equivalent to one-fifth of a penny in income tax and that it pales into insignificance compared with the giveaway Budgets that we have had in the past?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The Chancellor does not need to be reminded that, in one of the many opinion polls that were held before the 1987 general election, an overwhelming majority said that the Treasury should have found the necessary funds for the implementation of this important measure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the Beverley Lewis case. He was right to ask for a public inquiry. There are many lessons to be learnt. The debate has been dominated by the 1986 Act, and I intend to make further references to it. Many organisations, including the Spastics Society and the 40 voluntary bodies in the Act Now Group, support the implementation of the 1986 Act. They take the view that, in at least two respects, the Beverley Lewis case demonstrates that had the Act been fully implemented, some of that tragedy might have been avoided.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) outlined the Labour party's alternatives to the Government's policy. I was sorry that the Minister was somewhat abusive. Hon. Members will recall that, when in office, my right hon. Friend actually exceeded the Labour party manifesto commitments on disability. I look forward to the time when he will repeat that performance.
The motion could not be more appropriate because the House has been considering—at the moment Standing Committee E is actively considering—the Government's proposals on health and community care. There can be no effective policy unless there is a structure involving the consumer. The Government speak of consumer rights, but if consumer rights in terms of the disabled, carers and advocates are truly embraced by the Government, they should accept their responsibilities under the 1986 Act.
The Minister said that the Government will soon be meeting again with local authorities. I hate to sound ungracious, but we have heard that before. It has been said since April 1986. Time after time, we have been told by the Prime Minister and by other Ministers that the 1986 Act will be implemented when resources are available. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) reminded the House that the Government have no difficulty in finding resources for other purposes. Their priorities are clearly not those that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would endorse. I suspect from the tenor of tonight's debate that our priorities would be endorsed by most right hon. and hon. Members in a free vote.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh, in referring to the uniqueness of the disabled, was conscious of the fact—as are all right hon. and hon. Members—that the OPCS reports reveal that 6·5 million of our fellow citizens experience some form of disability. Many, many carers are trying to cope with the most difficult situations but they receive little support. Their difficulties ought to be recognised. Instead of a strategy for community care of the kind that we are told is Government policy, there is a great deal of fragmentation. Certainly joint planning is very


much missing in Scotland. Its absence is almost as evident as the absence of a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench tonight.
The Government say that, in the absence of joint planning, they are making arrangements to discharge long-stay patients from psychiatric hospitals and to place them in the community. On 12 July 1989, the Secretary of State for Health told the House:
I will ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place only when adequate medical and social care is available for them outside hospital."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 978.]
Where are those arrangements?
If section 7 of the 1986 Act has suddenly been dropped, despite previous assurances that its provisions were being actively discussed with local authorities to ensure their implementation, what arrangements are the Government making in their place? During Question Time yesterday, the Government were seriously criticised on both sides for discharging psychiatric patients into community care that does not exist. Apart from the problems that that creates for families and communities, it places a tremendous strain on social services departments.
We are told that local authorities will have to defend themselves in terms of the poll tax, and I hope that the obligations that have been placed upon them will be remembered. I hope that we will hear not about extavagant overspending councils, but about under-servicing councils. If the 1986 Act means anything, it is that we should dispense with the accidents of geography, where assessment and services may be provided in one area but not another. There should be national standards that genuinely respond to the needs of physically disabled and mentally handicapped or ill persons, their carers and their advocates. We believe that the 1986 Act offers that opportunity for individuals' rights.
The Minister referred briefly to education in his opening speech, and I hope that hon. Members will remember the importance of that to young people who live in special schools. It is a traumatic time for them and for their families. We must ensure that proper arrangements are made so that they feel part of the community.
The Minister referred to the Peto institute. The Government were right to ensure that whatever opportunities existed in eastern Europe were available to benefit our people. Many parents, including those who were delighted that their children benefited from going to the institute, asked why that opportunity is not available in this country. Why do they have to go to eastern Europe? Why are those facilities and services not resourced here?
There have been many splendid speeches tonight, but few hon. Members would disagree that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a telling impression on the House when he described disability in a mining community. We should recognise that we are talking about people with rights, including the right to dignity.
In my constituency, in a little village called Crowood which is also a mining community, lives Mary, a lady whose husband was injured in the Auchengeach disaster of 1959. He now has a heart condition and her son, Gerry, is a spastic, in his early thirties. In 1986 she visited the House when the Act was going through. Her sister helped her come to London, and it was her only visit from Scotland

since Gerry was born. She told me that her arm was black from top to bottom through coping with her son and because of her commitment and love for her child. She asked—and I conclude by putting it to the House and to the Minister—"What happens to Gerry after I have gone?" That is a reasonable question that many thousands of people ask.
I want a policy for disability and community care that will respond to that question and to the needs of disabled people, their parents—people like Mary and Albert—and others who care so much for them.

Mr. Scott: I cannot do a traditional wind-up speech in the time available, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was not able to do that in his speech. However, I want to deal with several issues raised in the debate.
I shall begin with the Peto institute, and what I intend to do in relation to that. For the time being, Budapest is the centre for conductive education. We have a modest facility in Birmingham, but if we are to build up a facility which will deliver conductive education properly to the young children in these islands who require it, the conductors will need a period of training. I am trying to achieve that, but in the meantime we expect British children and trainee British conductors to go to Budapest, and to draw on the experience and the expertise there.
In a sense, I share the view of the hon. Member for Monklands, West. This has been a good debate, and a quiet debate. Of course, the Opposition have said that we are not doing enough, and of course I have said that we are doing better than they could imagine. I suspect, however, that the debate has been so good because those who have taken part are a kind of fellowship: we all care about disabled people and want to do as much as we can, as quickly as we can, to enhance the quality of their lives.
I had hoped for a better attendance on the part of hon. Members who are less directly involved in such issues; I expected word to spread around the Palace of Westminster rather more quickly. Nevertheless, let me pay the warmest possible tribute to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and to all the members of the all-party disablement group. They work hard to maintain contact with groups of and for disabled people, and to make hon. Members aware of their needs.
There is, I believe, recognition—mostly among Conservative Members, although it occasionally ebbs from Opposition speeches—of the real progress that is being made, not just through benefits and a more coherent delivery of services, but in a range of ways, some of which I outlined in my opening remarks. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West that we must pay increasing attention to the issue of carers: in the coming weeks we shall discuss that with various organisations and campaigners, and we shall listen carefully to what they say.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) mentioned workplace facilities. When, in the summer, I involuntarily rendered myself disabled for two months, I was relieved that Parliament was in recess and that I did not have to hobble around the House on crutches. I shall mention the matter to my right hon. and


learned Friend the Lord President, but I suspect that the possibility of amending the geography of this building may be somewhat limited.
Let me say to the hon. Members for Monklands, West and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that I accept the need for a better delivery of services to enable people to live in their own home. The thrust of our present policy on community care is to dispense with the perverse incentive to put people into residential care—at vast public expenditure cost—which is often not what the individual concerned would have chosen. Instead we aim to provide packages of individually tailored care in the community to enable such people to live their lives as they wish. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) will recall, I spent this afternoon discussing that with the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—whose speech demonstrated his passion and commitment to the cause as well as his expertise—talked about the sufferers, especially miners, whose needs are not being met on the advice of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. According to the definition of terminal illness in the new arrangements for attendance allowance, it will be necessary to show that someone is suffering from a progressive disease and that his lifespan is unlikely to exceed six months. We are taking the advisory council's advice on the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but I shall take an early opportunity to draw its chairman's attention to his speech and to ask for it to be given careful consideration.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Beverley Lewis case. A local inquiry has been carried out, and the social services inspectorate is considering the lessons to be learnt from it. Although there are no plans for a public inquiry, I can give an absolute undertaking that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is also considering the lessons to be learnt, as well as the recommendation by the coroner's inquiry that the law relating to mentally disordered people and mandatory care be re-examined.
Some important points have been made about the problems and needs of disabled people. We have listened to them all. I cannot reply to them now, but I shall read carefully the report of the debate.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 273.

Division No. 46]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Buckley, George J.


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cartwright, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blair, Tony
Clay, Bob




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Franks, Cecil


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boswell, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Grist, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Chris
Grylls, Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Devlin, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt. David (Wirral W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Irvine, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Jack, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Janman, Tim


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Favell, Tony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Key, Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
Kilfedder, James


Fookes, Dame Janet
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Forman, Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knapman, Roger


Forth, Eric
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knowles, Michael

Clelland, David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Bob
Livsey, Richard


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tam
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Randall, Stuart


Henderson, Doug
Redmond, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Reid, Dr John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Richardson, Jo


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rooker, Jeff


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd).
Ruddock, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Janner, Greville
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steinberg, Gerry

Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Winnick, David


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. John McFall and


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tracey, Richard


Mudd, David
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. David Lightbown and


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the fact that social security expenditure for long-term sick and disabled people has virtually doubled in real terms since 1979, to a total of over £8 billion a year; notes with approval the greatly improved coverage of disability benefits associated with this achievement, which has increased the number of Mobility Allowance recipients from 95,000 to 615,000, the number of Attendance Allowance recipients from 265,000 to 795,000, and the number of Invalid Care Allowance recipients from 5,000 to 110,000; and welcomes the Government's proposals for further improvements, involving net additional expenditure rising to some £300 million in 1993–94, to help some 850,000 long-term sick and disabled people by measures which include increased premiums in income-related benefits for both disabled adults and disabled children, a new premium for carers, the extension of Attendance Allowance to disabled babies and to people who are terminally ill, the extension of Mobility Allowance to those who are both deaf and blind, increases in Severe Disablement Allowance focused especially on those disabled from birth or early in life, improved coverage of help with the extra costs of disability through a new Disability Allowance, and the introduction of a new Disability Employment Credit to assist and encourage those disabled people who can and wish to work.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 53), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the next three motions on the Order Paper:
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (House of Commons Paper No. 54), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
That the Welsh Non-Domestic Rating (County Share and District Share) Report (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 56), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

Mr. Walker: The reports confirm that this is an excellent settlement. Total standard spending for 1990–91 is up by 7·1 per cent. over last years' budgets, and by no less than 9·4 per cent. over 1989–90 provision. Aggregate external finance for 1990–91 is increased by 8·6 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1989–90. This means that charge payers in Wales should expect to contribute only 15 per cent. of local government spending, with the balance being met by business ratepayers and Government grants.
Wales has benefited in this way because local and central Government have worked together in partnership. There has been no deliberate challenge to the Government's expenditure plans. There has been no creative accountancy and there has been no rate capping. This has been a remarkable success story from which the whole of Wales has benefited.
Local authorities in Wales know that they have been given a real opportunity to ensure a level of community charge averaging £173. They can achieve it if they budget responsibly in line with the settlement and in the interests of their charge payers.
Opposition Members have claimed that total standard spending of £2,114·5 million is less than the amount required. They have voiced similar unfounded claims in response to all previous Welsh rate support grant settlements. But where is the evidence? There is none. The fact is that Welsh local government has been given the resources needed to maintain and develop services.
I was very surprised when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in responding to my statement on 18 December, made the extraordinary claim:
There is no room for efficiency savings after 10 years of Conservative Government."—[Official Report, 18 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 28.]
It is a remarkable thing that, if today he were Secretary of State for Wales, he would be telling local authorities that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, he did not expect any further improvements in the efficiency of local authorities.
The fact is that the Audit Commission has estimated that some £52 million of efficiency savings are achievable by Welsh councils purely on those services which the Commission has so far examined. Some of these have


already been realised and Welsh councils are commendably seeking further savings. I hope that the Welsh local authorities will continue to recognise, as I believe they do, the scope for greater efficiency.
The settlement is also an excellent one for non-domestic ratepayers. Their contribution to local government spending has been held at the same level in real terms as in 1989–90. I have honoured my commitment to ensure that the introduction of the uniform business rate will not lead to an increase in the burden on business. As a result of these new arrangements, which will remove the inequitable distortions caused by variations in local poundages, the business sector now has certainty that the maximum increase in its contribution in future years will not exceed inflation. The revaluation will remove the inequity caused by using out-of-date rateable values.
It is important also to recognise that the contribution required from Welsh businesses amounts only to around 20 per cent. of local authority spending and that the transitional arrangements I have introduced will phase in the changes faced by individual businesses over a number of years.
The combined effects of the revaluation and the introduction of the unform business rate will serve to reduce the rates burden on industrial property.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State regard it as reasonable for village shopkeepers in Wales to have to pay 100 per cent. more than they are paying at present? They tell me that that is the consequence of UBR.

Mr. Walker: In any revaluation, careful consideration is given to the value of the buildings. In certain aspects of retailing which have not been revalued for many years, adjustments have been made when the value has increased. Similarly, there has been a reduction for a range of manufacturing and industrial concerns. I have created a system whereby the inequities caused by a lack of revaluation are removed.
I am glad to say that the combined effects of the revaluation and the introduction of UBR will benefit industrial properties. That can only be beneficial for the reinvigoration of Welsh industry, especially in the valleys, where the rate burden of industries will be about £11 million lower.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does not the revaluation to some extent benefit manufacturing industry because of the decline in manufacturing industry over the past 10 years? That is not something to crow about—it is something to feel very sorry about.

Mr. Walker: Surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman is talking a load of nonsense. Quite a lot of manufacturing industry owns elderly buildings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency, inward investment has increaed on a colossal scale. I am glad that the industries of the valleys are benefiting from these proposals by £11 million a year.
Transitional provisions will also operate to reduce the effect of the new system on community charge payers. I have provided £20 million for a scheme of community charge transitional relief in 1990–91, over and above aggregate external finance. The overall effect is that the

average charge actually payable in Wales—assuming that authorities spend in line with my plans—should be £165, and certainly less than £173. The scheme will continue in 1991–92 and 1992–93. I have today placed my latest estimates of the distribution of these resources in the Library.
The scheme will ensure that all charge payers in communities where community charges implied by the settlement are more than a specified threshold above the average rates bill per adult payable in 1989–90 will have their charges reduced by an amount equivalent to that excess—320 out of 860 communities in Wales will benefit, including all the communities in the Rhondda and a very high proportion of the communities in other valley areas.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the way that the system works is rough justice? Dwyfor, which the Department has identified as an area of low per capita and family income, has not one community that benefits from this safety net. Why is that happening? What can be done about it?

Mr. Walker: I consulted local authorities, and they were agreed that this was the best way of getting the fullest benefit from the available money. I am very much in favour of the system. It will mean low administrative costs and will be a benefit for charge payers. Some 750,000 charge payers will benefit from the scheme. Because there is extra money outside aggregate external finance, charge payers in areas gaining from the new system will not be required to contribute towards an area safety net.
For those on the lowest incomes, community charge benefits will be available to meet up to 80 per cent. of the charge—although, because of the low level of community charges in Wales, those who are on income support will actually enjoy an effective rate of relief higher than the 100 per cent. rate rebates that they obtain at present. [Interruption.] More than 100 per cent. I have taken steps to ensure that people know about these benefits and are encouraged to take them up. This will bring positive cash benefits to 300,000 of the lowest income people in Wales. There have been a number of reports that some Welsh councils are planning to increase their expenditure very substantially and therefore to set high community charges.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Walker: No, I will not give way. This is an important point. Those councils mistakenly believe that their charge payers will assume that the Government are to blame.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Walker: Let me remind the House that the settlement allows for an increase in expenditure of 7·1 per cent., but we learn that, among the counties, South Glamorgan, Powys and Gwynedd are planning to increase spending by between 12 and 13 per cent.

Mr. Barry Jones: On rates, is not the maximum only 80 per cent? Would the Secretary of State care to think about that? Perhaps there is a note waiting for him on the Bench behind him.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is going back to the rebate point. I do not need a note. I am saying that the


people on the maximum rate rebate scheme, because of low incomes, will be substantially better off financially as a result of what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid the serious point that I am making, so I shall repeat it. South Glamorgan, Powys and Gwynedd are planning to increase spending by between 12 and 13 per cent. Among the districts, Newport is planning an increase in expenditure of over 20 per cent. and Cardiff of over 30 per cent. In the latter case, this follows increases in the previous two years of 13·4 per cent. and 19·7 per cent.—well above the average increase for all Welsh districts.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Walker: No; I want to continue.
These increases are outrageous and totally irresponsible. They represent quite unjustifiable demands on charge payers, and pre-empt charge payers' decisions as to what they can afford.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Walker: They are, in fact, putting quite
unnecessary burdens—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a point of order.

Mr. Rogers: The business before the House is complicated. I think it would further the debate substantially if the Secretary of State would give way and reply to points of detail—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, if he catches the eye of the Chair, will have his say eventually.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important. The Secretary of State has said himself that it is a very important matter that he is dealing with. The questions that my hon. Friends want to ask him are about the explanations that he is giving. In regard to your ruling about hon. Members catching your eye, you will appreciate that the debate will last only one and a half hours. All of us have an interest in the issue, so we cannot all hope to catch your eye. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will impress upon the Secretary of State that it is important for him to give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I impress upon the House that points of order, which are not as genuine as I wish, usurp the time of the House? I hope to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Walker: I hope that the charge payers in Wales will note that two bogus points of order have delayed the debate.
I repeat that the increases are outrageous and totally irresponsible. They represent quite unjustifiable demands on charge payers, and pre-empt charge payers' decisions as to what they can actually afford. They are, in fact, putting quite unnecessary burdens on the charge payers they purport to represent.
Until local accountability takes full effect, I will have to consider how to protect Welsh charge payers from excessive spending and outrageous community charges. Rate capping was never used in Wales: it was never

necessary to do so. I had hoped that this would be so with charge capping. But if spending is not reduced from this extravagant scale, the councils concerned will force me to consider using my powers to limit charges to reasonable levels in order to protect their charge payers.
Let me make it plain that the crucial difference between England and Wales in recent years has been the better performance of Welsh local government in budgeting sensibly and containing spending to responsible aand affordable levels. That has led to a succession of realistic, indeed generous, settlements that have recognised and rewarded the performance of Welsh authorities. However, on the basis of the figures that I have quoted, I can assure the House that the Welsh local authorities are helping to ensure that, quite simply, such generosity will not be forthcoming in future.
I was shocked to read in the press that the chief financial adviser of one Welsh council has apparently advised it to create a new baseline for spending. In doing so, he is quoted as saying that this might be the last of the favourable years for local authorities in Wales. I have to advise those who might peddle such views that, if their advice results in extravagant spending increases, that could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This debate is not just about the reports we have before us; it is also about the responsibility of the House to ensure that the interests of our community chargepayers are protected from the extravagant and unnecessary burdens that some councils at present seem willing to inflict on them. It is also about the need for local government to avoid taking short-term political decisions.
Perhaps some local authorities think that, as there is no election this year, they will put up the charge now and then take advantage when the elections occur. If that is their motive, they will be exposed. There is time for them to think again and for the wiser politicians among them, including members of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of Welsh Districts, to curb those who appear to be set on inflicting such damage.
Local government recognises that the Government have delivered a settlement that should be beneficial to Welsh chargepayers, and that authorities can best serve their chargepayers by containing their spending and keeping the community charges low. There is no need for charges to be higher than those I have published, and an average of £173 is achievable. This is an outstanding settlement for Wales, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: The subject of this debate is important; it affects our children's education, our housing, the homeless, the care of the elderly and our local environment. The Secretary of State set out only half the story. In a nasty, indeed extraordinary, speech, he launched unjustified attacks upon responsible county authorities. I remind him that he could not have better local authorities with which to deal. He need only ask his officials and they would tell him that that was the case.
It is not an excellent settlement. The total standard spending and aggregate external finance are inadequate. The figure of £173 is unrealistic. It is likely to be about £210; £173 it is not. After the right hon. Gentleman's recklessly sanguine hymn of praise for his wretched poll tax—a tax that the people of Wales do not want—I can do no better than to quote W. B. Yeats:
A Statesman is an easy man,
He tells his lies by rote;
A journalist makes up his lies
And takes you by the throat
The right hon. Gentleman can ponder on that.
The Government are engaged in an elaborate exercise in buck passing. Time and again, Ministers cite a misleading and inaccurate standard community charge or poll tax. The figure is an illusion. So when the poll tax demands fall through the letter box in a few months' time, people in Wales will wonder why the figure is so much higher than the figure that the Government have publicised so widely and vigorously.
Already, the Government are trying to pin the blame on local councils, and the aim of the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was to furnish the Government with an alibi in advance. I want to tell the Secretary of State that the buck starts and stops with Ministers at the Welsh Office, and with the motions that the Government are trying to railroad through the House.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No.
The major defect is the shortfall in resources as represented by the figure of total standard spending. The finance directors and treasurers of local authorities in Wales believe that the total standard spending figure falls short, by 4 per cent., of the sum required to maintain existing services and to cope with the considerable volume of added burdens being imposed by the Government under recent legislation—specifically, the implementation of the national curriculum, local management of schools, the proposals contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the vital requirement to safeguard our assets—our buildings and roads.

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin); I shall give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to an hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency. He has been speaking with great authority about the problems faced by Welsh valley authorities. Can he explain to us why, according to the figures given by the Secretary of State, the poll tax payers of Rhymney valley will be faced with bills of £166 after discount, whereas, according to the treasurer of Rhymney Valley district council, the council will have to levy a poll tax of about £225 if it is to maintain existing standards of service? Is not the figure given by the Secretary of State an Alice-in-Wonderland figure?

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has destroyed the alibi of the Secretary of State for Wales. With his cogent intervention he has exposed the paucity of the right hon. Gentleman's case. My hon. Friend will agree that there are more English Members than Welsh Members on the Conservative Benches. Where are the Welsh Conservative Members?

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Jones: No.
We have about 400,000 dwellings in Wales with a rateable value of less than £100. That is more than one third of the total. In addition, 225,000 dwellings in Wales have a rateable value of £75 or less. Many of the families living in those dwellings will watch their household bill double or quadruple over the next four years. In valley communities and some rural communities with the lowest domestic rateable values, the community charge for one-adult households will be about the same as the present rate bill in four years' time. For a two-adult household it will be double, for a three-adult household it will be treble and for a four-adult household it will be quadruple. Those are the estimates of the much respected Association of District Councils in Wales.
Reaction to the news about the business rate has been understandably angry, to say the least. Even bodies traditionally supportive of the Conservative party, such as the CBI, have voiced alarm. Many economic analysts have warned of the effects that it will have on investment and the fundamental health of businesses.
As for the effect of the community charge on the domestic front, there has been hardly a voice of sympathy for the move.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Jones: No, I will not give way.
John Banham of the CBI has even accused the new business rate of subsidising, as it were, the community charge. That was stated by The Western Mail, which is usually supportive of the Secretary of State's policies. I wish to examine the impact of what is proposed on small businesses and retailers, and I believe that it will be considerable, despite the transitional relief arrangements.
In the next few years, businesses face massive increases in business rates. In Cardiff, for example, a newsagent's shop on Cowbridge road faces a 97 per cent. increase in rates, from £1,616 to £3,183 when transitional relief ends. Also in Cardiff, our capital city, a petrol station on Cathedral road faces a massive increase of over 200 per cent., from £3,500 to £10,900 when transitional relief ends. In Newport, the Panasonic electronics factory faces a 24 per cent. increase, to £111,000, with the end of transitional relief. Also in Newport, the Westgate hotel—

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Will it be in order at the end of this debate for hon. Members who represent English constituencies—even though, as I am, they may be of Welsh birth—to vote on this matter and thereby put British Treasury money into this instrument, bearing in mind that I shall have great difficulty in taking part in the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That convoluted point of order has nothing whatever to do with the debate.

Mr. Jones: I repeat, there are more English Conservative Members on the Government Benches than there are Welsh Conservatives.

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite aside from whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way, and of course it is his privilege not to give way, will you confirm that it is in order for English Members to take part in the debate and to seek to question the hon. Gentleman?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is, of course, perfectly in order for English or Scottish Members, should they catch my eye, to take part in the debate.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to the point—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I dealt with that point of order very adequately.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is clear to my hon. Friends and me that Conservative Members are intent on interfering with a debate that particularly concerns Welsh—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. So far as I am concerned, no hon. Member will interfere with the debate. Mr. Jones has the Floor.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Wilshire: Is it in order for English Members to learn from the Welsh why the community charge is so much cheaper in Wales than in England?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are all here to be persuaded about all kinds of issues.

Mr. Jones: A shop in Oxford street in Swansea currently paying £33,000 in rates will pay £54,000 with the end of transitional relief—an increase of over 60 per cent. In Alyn and Deeside my local newsagent currently pays £684 in rates. Next year, under the new non-domestic rating system, the rates will be £847. When transitional relief ends, the rates will rise to £1,869.
A Chinese restuarant in Shotton currently pays rates of £2,987. Its rates will more than double to £6,000 when transitional relief ends.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: The impact on local authority rates bills will also be great, but local authorities are not compensated for that in the revenue support grant settlement. Therefore, the impact will mean higher poll taxes.
My local authority—Alyn and Deeside—currently pays £103,000 in rates on Deeside leisure centre at Queensferry. In the first year of the uniform business rate, the rates bill will rise to £134,000. Without transitional relief the rates payable wil be £202,000—an increase of 95 per cent. The full effect will mean that the council's rate bill for next year

will rise by 25 per cent., and with the end of transitional relief the figure will be 82 per cent. The Government are not pointing all that out and local authorities must explain to their communities the damage that will arise from a supposed enhancement.
The Government claim that industry will benefit. Under the revaluation, Shotton steelworks stands to gain a £1·5 million cut in its rates bill and that is the equivalent of about 140 new jobs. I thank the Secretary of State for that. However, under the system of transitional relief, the steelworks must wait years before it receives the full benefit.
It is totally unrealistic to claim that the poll tax in Wales will work out at £173. The likely figure is £210. The settlement that the Secretary of State seeks to impose is £80 million, or 4 per cent., short. All the financial professionals agree on that.
The Government also ignore the high rate of inflation, high interest rates and the white and blue-collar salary increases which local government must bear. They underestimate the costs of collecting the poll tax and they overestimate the numbers who will pay it. As the settlement is defective, there will be severe pressure on the schools service, social services, housing and local environmental services.
The impact of the business rate on small businesses will be considerable. There may be bankruptcies, there will be hardship and there is disillusion. Already the rate of liquidations and bankruptcies has risen amazingly. The situation is now worrying throughout Wales.
The poll tax will bear down very hard on the Gwent valleys, on Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Dyfed. That is what politically impartial professionals in local government tell me. The poll tax is a poor reward for people who still bear the scars of deprivation and economic difficulties.
In 1987, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the poll tax
will be known as a Tory tax."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]
With a dignity that few others can attain, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said that the Prime Minister had foisted the unworkable poll tax upon us. That is Conservative Members' definition of electoral poison in Wales.
Last week, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the poll tax is "wholly unfair", "Orwellian", and "illogical". He also said that it is "expensive," and "difficult," and "difficult to collect."
On transitional relief, welcome though it is, I note what the Secretary of State said tonight. The figure is the same as that which was given last December. What is new?
Opposition Members will vote against the revenue support grant report and the revenue support grain distribution report. There are seven Welsh Conservative Members. It appears that war has been declared on two knights of the shires, but I predict that the poll tax will put severe pressure on the remainder. There is discernible panic in Conservative ranks because of the poll tax—[Interruption.] I advise Conservative Members who are trying hard not to listen that the poll tax does not relate to ability to pay. The bigger one's house and the wealthier the citizen, the better the poll tax suits.
The people of Wales always demand fair play. We are a democratic and fair-minded people. The poll tax cannot be right in Wales. There is no support for the poll tax in


Wales. Last year, in two parliamentary by-elections, the county elections and the European elections, the Welsh electorate delivered a resounding rejection of the poll tax.
Tonight, Her Majesty's Government will impose the poll tax upon the people of Wales. In effect, they propose a £173 confidence trick. The reports will only confirm an anti-Tory mood in Wales. That mood has been growing steadily, and it will sweep away the Conservatives. A Government who impose a poll tax on Wales deserve to be defeated.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) began by wondering, in a rather naive voice, why some of the Welsh community charge figures about which we have heard will be at an excessive level. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer as well as I do, but he refuses to give it. There is only one truthful reason why any council in Wales will levy an excessive community charge, and that is because it will choose to do so.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I should not like it to be thought that there is no welcome in Wales, so I shall give way.

Mr. Smith: I, too, recognise that the Secretary of State's claims are premised on the assessment of Welsh authorities' spending requirements.
Before they start using the language of rate capping, I remind Conservative Members that on Monday, the Vale of Glamorgan borough council levied a community charge 36 per cent. above the Welsh Office's target. That is one of only two Conservative district councils in Wales. Incidentally, one of them has in the past—mistakenly, I believe—observed Government spending guidelines. If they—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.

Mr. Jones: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I fully intend to refer to his own council, if he will only allow me to make progress.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered an excellent settlement and has steadily improved the position. In November he said that the average community charge in Wales would be £174. On December 18 he told the House that the figure would be only £173, or £165 after allowing for the rebate scheme. Wales is doing better in every way. Sixty-seven per cent. of all council expenditure there is coming from central Government, which compares very favourably with a contribution of 56 per cent. in Scotland or of only 46 per cent. in England.
The new business rate of only 20 per cent. in Wales will bear down much more easily than the 28 per cent. that will apply elsewhere. Some 85 per cent. of all Welsh council expenditure will be covered, leaving only 15 per cent. to be raised by the community charge.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales ever finds himself looking for a new job, that of Secretary of State for Dorset should certainly be open to him? He is asking community charge payers in Wales to make only a 15 per cent. contribution, whereas in Dorset, the Government contribution will be only 38 per cent., leaving local authorities there to raise the remaining 62 per cent.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. Meanwhile, the people of Wales are doing better in every way.
Who then is letting down the people of Wales?—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Tories."] Who is causing the anger that has been created at the unnecessarily high level of

community charge being imposed in some parts of Wales? The answer to that question is the local councils, which are best depicted here by hon. Members opposite.
The settlement provides Welsh councils with a 7·1 per cent. increase—not on Welsh Office figures, but on the local council's own figures.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman condemn the total irresponsibility of the Vale of Glamorgan council in ignoring that wonderful gift from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should apologise for wasting the time of the House. I have already said that I shall be referring later to Vale of Glamorgan council.
Eighty-five per cent. of Welsh councils's spending will be met from central Government, leaving them to find only the balance of 15 per cent. themselves. They have chosen to set community charges that are far too high, purely for crude political advantage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, said when winding up last Thursday's debate on local government finance, Labour councils in Wales, as in England, are following the instructions from on high to set a rate as high as they can get away with. They are blatantly exploiting the confusion that has naturally arisen in the change from rates to community charge, by blaming any increases on the Government.
If what is happening in my constituency is typical of the rest of Wales, as seems to be the case, many Welsh people are justified in being furious at their local councils. South Glamorgan county council is proposing a community charge of £175 when it ought to be no higher than £147, and could easily be lower. That represents a 20 per cent. increase. Cardiff city council's community charge should be £31 but it proposes a figure of £78—a 152 per cent. increase.
If South Glamorgan is bad, Cardiff is crazy. Remember that Cardiff is the more extreme, more Left-wing council. It is not just a Labour council, it is supported by its allies in the Liberal party. If anyone has ever doubted whether the Liberals are a party of the extreme Left, I invite them to look at the situation in Cardiff, where the Liberal and Labour parties jostle with each other to show which is the dafter.
I know that they have been desperate to soak up the extra spending that has been proposed in this ridiculous 152 per cent. increase—£78. The Vale of Glamorgan council next door, which provides virtually the same services, is proposing a community charge of £24. That is the difference. People who live in an area administered by a responsible, Conservative-controlled council, get a community charge of £24. I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan county council does not expect any rise to be necessary next year.
The latest dodge is that Cardiff is selling back to itself land that it already owns so that it can charge the charge payers an extra £20.
I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that there may be variations between the figures, perhaps of 1, 2 or even 5 or 10 per cent., but 55 per cent. is the scale of the increase we face from April, and that is over and above what we know needs to be charged in Cardiff. That is way beyond any amount that is sane. It is crazy.
The settlement is very good. We had a 7·1 per cent. allowance for increases. The councils only had to find 15 per cent. They have now come up with a community charge of £253. They know that it is a political con, and they are trying to take advantage.
However, I remind the Opposition that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." In Cardiff we have had that experience. The last time that Labour was in control in Cardiff it went in for increases on this scale and put up the rates up by 94·5 per cent. We had local elections a year later and Labour was swept from control.
The people of Cardiff will realise that they have to pay £90 a year more per person—the price of having a Labour or an extreme Left-wing council in charge. There will be elections next year, but that is a long way off. In the meantime my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is the last line of defence for the people of Cardiff and the people of Wales.
How mad or bad do councils in Wales have to be before my right hon. Friend uses his powers and acts? I was glad to hear the firm commitment that he made this evening. He is absolutely right, and I encourage him to move in that direction. Unless some sanity comes to Cardiff and to similar crazy councils, he must consider capping them.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall try to be brief, as so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak.
The uniform business rate is one of the many idiocies of the poll tax. At Question Time on Monday, and again this evening, the Secretary of State made much of the fact that manufacturing industries and factories, many of them in the valleys and throughout south Wales, will benefit because the valuation of those properties will be lower after revaluation. That is a fact, but perhaps he should not crow too much about it, as the valuations are lower because of the decline in manufacturing and industry in Wales during the past ten years.
B and Q will pay more, Great Mills will pay more and all the other temples of consumerism selling foreign goods will pay more because they make more profits. Maufacturing industry will pay less, not because its property is dilapidated, which is what the Secretary of State said, but because there is no profit in manufacturing industry. It is because of the decline in manufacturing industry in the past ten years.
The Secretary of State need not smile at my remarks. It is a fact that 10 years of Tory Government have caused a massive decline in manufacturing industry in Wales. It is nothing to shout about—we should feel sorry about it. That is why the revaluation is having that effect.
The uniform business rate will make matters worse. As I understand it, it does not matter how many factories or manufacturing units a district or county council area contains; what matters is the number of people it contains. Manufacturing industry rating goes first to the Treasury and then back to the Welsh Office before being distributed per head of population. Why should planning officers in Llanelli, Cardiff or anywhere else put land aside for industrial development if it can be put to better use—if houses can be built on it, and people put into those houses? That will mean more money, in the form of both poll tax and uniform business rate.
The reforms militate against manufacturing industry. The planning officer is in charge; the industrial development officer has nothing to do, because his land is worth less than the land earmarked for residential housing. The uniform business rate is a crazy tax, which will lead to a further decline in our manufacturing base. It is symptomatic of the 10 years of the present Government that property has always come first and manufacturing second, and the uniform business rate will exacerbate the problem. The sooner it is abolished and we bring back a community-based industrial tax, the better.
The link between industry and local government will be broken; no incentives will be left. South Wales does not possess many flat industrial sites, and we are particularly short of large sites for large industrial investment. Such sites will be used increasingly for housing purposes—as they have been over the past five years—and particularly for housing at the upper end of the market, as people living in such houses do not draw on local resources so much. The uniform business rate is one of the most idiotic aspects of the whole idiotic poll tax.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not be voting against the orders. Unfortunately, I ran into my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) in the Lobby, and he told me with tears in his eyes how much it would upset my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if I did. Being—as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—has so delicately put it—a member of the spineless tendency, I decided to take refuge in abstention.
I cannot withhold my admiration for the brazen cheek with which my right hon. Friend shamelessly raids the coffers of the Treasury for the benefit of poll tax payers—I have the Prime Minister's authority to use the term "poll tax"—of Wales. I also admire the immense skill with which he has handled local authorities of all political persuasions throughout Wales, and has managed—up to now—to induce them to behave in a reasonable manner; I do not want to do anything to make his task more difficult.
My brief tells me that the new system of local government finance is simpler and fairer, and that it will lead to more political accountability. I must say that I find "fairer" a little difficult to accept; I know that it is a cheap example, but I find it hard to understand why the Duke of Westminster should pay the same sum as an elderly couple who have retired to a small cottage precisely because of its lower rateable value.
"Simpler" is a bit more complex. Perhaps the scheme had simpler elements when it was first announced—it had, at least, the merit of rough injustice—but now we have rebates for the poorest, which I welcome; exemptions for some handicapped people, but not for others; safety nets, and then transitional cushioning for the introduction of the safety nets; and, on top of all that, the near-certainty that the level of non-payment, whether through deliberate refusal or through the impossibility of keeping track of migrants, will hugely exceed the estimates. It no longer looks quite so simple as it did at the beginning. It is now beginning to look as though the uniform business rate will give rise to some problems of its own.
There is a great deal of unjustified moaning about the uniform business rate. I take the point made by the right


hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but, because of the delays over revaluation—neither side of the House can take great pride in that—many businesses have been paying far lower rates for a great many years than they ought to have done under any equitable system. There will therefore be large increases, and they will be a shock.
There is a delightful pub in my constituency, the Blue Lion at Cwm. At the end of every polling day, my wife and I like to have a drink there. We certainly intend to have a drink there after polling at the next general election. The landlord of that pub told me with some dismay that his business rate will increase from £4,700 to £7,300. I understand his shock. Although it will be spread over three years, it is nevertheless a very substantial increase.
It is a little awkward for the Government to argue that a sharp rise in the business rate for some is not unreasonable, since revaluation would have led to such an increase, even under the old rating system. My recollection is that the Government used the pretext of revaluation as some kind of scare—to suggest that retention of the existing rating system would be quite impossible.
As for the new mechanism for the revenue support grant, I thought that, if not more equitable, it would be easier to explain. By and large, I suppose that it probably is. To some extent, however, we are in Red Queen territory, too. Rhuddlan borough council, under the leadership of its exceptionally able chief executive, who is also the borough treasurer, and has been for a long time past, finds that it will get £745,000 less in revenue support grant than it received last year, entailing a poll tax increase from £35 to £53.
That does not mean that the borough council has been extravagant. All it means—we have the explanation from the Welsh Office—is that the reduction
results from a revision—fully discussed with and accepted by the Council of Welsh Districts—to the formula for the current expenditure component of SSAs. Whilst this revision inevitably affects the SSA of certain districts, including Rhuddlan, it is important to set this change within the context of the excellent Settlement for Wales for 1990/91.
I accept that it is an excellent settlement for Wales, but it is pretty cold comfort for poor old Rhuddlan, just because the formula changes, to find itself £750,000 short, having to increase its poll tax element by 50 per cent. and risking being clobbered for so doing.
What about accountability? The first thing that leaps to mind—it is something that Ministers have been claiming, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales claimed it just now—is that local authorities will be raising a much smaller proportion of the money that they will spend than they did under the old system. Previously, it was nearly 40 per cent.; now, it is about 16 per cent. I do not understand where the accountability comes into it, according to that formula.
Under the uniform business rate, there is a further removal of accountability. Not only will councils not fix the rates; they will not even derive any benefit if they treat local businesses well. Once again, I cannot see the logic of it.
My right hon. Friend has excellent relationships with the Welsh local authorities. Until recently, they have responded well. Despite the huge defects of the system, I hope that they will continue to do so. That is one reason why I shall not vote against the reports tonight. If, none the less, after all this explanation I am asked by Opposition

Members why I am not going into the Division Lobby, I shall have to confess that, frankly, I am stumped for an answer.

Mr. Richard Livsey: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). He has a style which has long been lost in the Conservative party, and we congratulate him on his recent campaign.
The best way to analyse what the Secretary of State is doing is to look at individual parts of Wales and see how they are affected by the revenue support grant, how that affects the level of the poll tax, and how they will be affected by the uniform business rate.
We need to examine specific circumstances. As the Secretary of State decided to bash Powys a little in his speech, I want to give some figures for that area.

Mr. Morgan: A loony Left council.

Mr. Livsey: As the hon. Gentleman says.
The Secretary of State should congratulate Powys on having come up with a poll tax that is almost bang on the average £173 that the right hon. Gentleman said was the right figure to go for. The only problem is that Powys's poll tax is likely to be the lowest in the whole of Wales, so it cannot possibly be the average.
The Welsh Office firmly predicted in November that the county of Powys would pay a poll tax element of £109; and, adding on the appropriate district and community council costs, the end figure for the poll tax would be £120 for Montgomery, £129 for Radnor and £130 for Brecknock.
The only problem with these predictions is that they showed a £3·5 million shortfall in expenditure compared with what the Welsh Office itself assumed the county would need to spend in the coming financial year to provide an average level of services—that is, the assumption for total standard spending. Local government treasurers in Powys were astonished by the Welsh Office's poll tax predictons. They rightly said that the £3·5 million shortfall had to be made up. That done, they predicted that the poll tax would between £175 and £200 a head.
Yesterday, Powys, along with the district, set its poll tax. The county poll tax ended up at £147, not the £109 forecast by the Welsh Office in November—an increase of £38 per head. Radnor district set its poll tax yesterday at £175, not the £129 forecast by the Welsh Office in November, an increase of £46 a head just to keep services—

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Livsey: No, I will not.
As I said, all this was just to keep services equivalent to Welsh Office targets. In this exercise, the Welsh Office sets up figures only to knock them down again.
Powys will have the lowest poll tax in Wales, at £175. That was the average poll tax predicted by the Secretary of State last autumn. I can confidently predict that every other council in Wales will have a much higher figure.
All these false figures are nothing more than a con trick. The Welsh Office predicts that wages will rise by 6 per cent., but the Secretary of State for Education and Science has predicted an increase of 7·5 per cent. for teachers. The


figures do not add up; no allowance has been made for such increases. The legislation for implementing the national curriculum and for local management—

Mr. Win Griffiths: Mid Glamorgan has already found that, under the last settlement, the money provided by the Government was £350,000 short of what was needed. To provide water and extra power points in old primary schools, the council will have to spend almost £500,000 that the Welsh Office has refused to provide. That one small item is equivalent to another £1.25 on the poll tax. Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Livsey: It was a disgrace. The hon. Gentleman makes his point well: the level of the poll tax was grossly under-estimated.
New burdens will be placed on community care by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, and the green Bill, which contains provisions on litter and adds the burden of collecting it on districts, and will add an estimated 6 per cent. to the costs of districts.
To shorten my speech, I shall give two brief examples of problems that will arise under the uniform business rate. At present, a newsagent's shop I know in mid-Wales pays rates of i1,239, but under the uniform business rate it will pay £1,533—an increase of almost £300, or almost 24 per cent. A tourism complex in the south of my constituency currently pays £19,000 in rates, but under the uniform business rate it will pay £35,000—an increase of £16,000, or almost 100 per cent.
The uniform business rate will have a devastating effect on small businesses. The Treasury's contribution will be only 2 per cent., yet business rate payers in Powys will contribute 40 per cent.—not 20 per cent.—which was the figure that the Secretary of State gave. This is a good deal for the Treasury but a lousy one for small businesses. Added to those figures must be high interest rates, which, with the uniform business rate are a right and left hook to small businesses. Small business people who used to vote for the Conservative party will not do so again under any circumstances.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If the Labour party has any sense, it would not oppose the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) at the next election. Only he makes the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) sound exciting.
Tonight, I heard the most synthetic opposition that I have ever heard in the House. The Labour party knows that Wales is getting a better deal on the community charge than Scotland or England. We are benefiting from the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
I welcome the community charge system. I do not understand how it can be considered fair for 50 per cent. of the electorate in Pembrokeshire to vote in local elections but not make a direct contribution to the services that they receive, while the other 50 per cent. carry the burden through the rating system. Everyone over 18 who is eligible to vote in local elections should make a direct contribution to local authorities for the services that they receive.
It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to claim that people who live in bigger houses

have bigger incomes. Many of my constituents who live in large houses, but whose husbands or wives have died and whose children have moved away, are on low incomes. They do not wish to move from the home in which they have lived for 40 or 50 years. I do not believe that they should be driven out.
The community charge recognises that not houses but individuals use local authority services. Individuals use street lighting, dustbins, swimming pools and public libraries, not houses. They should therefore contribute to the cost of the services that they receive.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No, because the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside would not give way to Conservative Members throughout his speech. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) had a fair crack of the whip in the earlier debate on education.
The community charge will make local authorities more accountable. It cannot be right that a minority in many local authority areas picks up the bill for the services provided to the majority. Local authorities will be more accountable if every voter in local elections makes a direct contribution to the cost of local authority services.
We should be aware of the position in Wales. This year, we are receiving a 7·1 per cent. increase from the Government in local authority grants, based not on Welsh Office figures but on the previous year's spending of local authorities. In addition, relief will be available to one in three community charge payers, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
Some community charge voters will get an 80 per cent. rebate on the total charge that they would have had to pay, had they been on average earnings. It is important to acknowledge that the Government have taken into account people's ability to pay, not only in the fact that those who pay income tax and are on the highest rates will pay 16 times as much anyway in their contributions to central Government, but in the community charge itself, with relief of up to 80 per cent.
On the uniform business rate—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition, who rarely graces the Chamber during debates on Wales, wants to say something. Perhaps he would like to come in at this point?

Mr. Kinnock: The House will sympathise with my not being here more often, if I have to listen to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the term "community charge voters", since I have not heard it before? It is a candid expression for him to use. Since he is trying to draw a connection between the liability for taxation and the right to vote, will he tell us whether he should celebrate the fact that people will get up to 80 per cent. rebates? Should that mean a reduction in their civil right to cast their vote?

Mr. Bennett: Only the right hon. Gentleman's logic would get him to that final point. On his first point, as community charge payers will be the same people as the voters, there is clearly a correlation between the two. At


the moment in some cases, the voters are rarely the ratepayers; in future, those who vote will also make a contribution to the services.
On the uniform business rate, it seems to me that Opposition Members are selective in their memories. They were in power from 1974 to 1979. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was a junior Minister in the Welsh Office. The Labour Government cancelled the revaluation in 1978. Admittedly, the present Government also cancelled a revaluation, which only goes to show that when it comes to facing up to challenges, Governments of both parties have been in dereliction of their duties; but at last the nettle has been grasped, and it is important to recognise, when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside says that since 1973 there have been large increases in rateable value, that there have also been increases in rental value.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assume that there will be a wind-up for this debate and, in fairness to both Front-Bench speakers, I think that we should have a little time for them. I take it that the Division will be called at 11.44 pm.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is barely a point of order. We ought to proceed with the debate.

Mr. Bennett: I have been generous in giving way to Opposition Members and I have been speaking for five minutes.
Rental values have increased tremendously since 1973 and it is not surprising if rateable values have also increased in the same period. A lot of nonsense is talked about the increase in rateable values. A headline in my local paper says, "Rates Shock for Traders", and goes on to say:
One trader in the town's High Street has seen the rateable value on his property jump from £64 to 1,450—a staggering 2,265 per cent. increase"—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor should not be interrupted in this way.

Mr. Bennett: We have to ignore the intellectual tendency on the Opposition Front Bench because at this time of night they are a little more exuberant than they might otherwise be.
To return to the Tenby Observer of 19 January 1990, it says that one trader in the town's high street has seen the rateable value of his property jump from £64 to £1,450, an increase of 2,265 per cent. If it was really £64, that must be the lowest rateable value for any business in Wales. But even after the increase to £1,450 and without transitional relief, that business will ultimately pay £533·60. That hardly seems to me an unreasonable figure for business premises in a town in my constituency.
But that is the sort of publicity that we get in the local papers, when reporters do not explain what the amount will be under the business rate, but refer merely to the rateable value. The figures show that on the whole businesses in Wales will enjoy a good deal as a result of the settlement. With the transitional relief, no business will face an increase of more than 23 per cent. if inflation runs at 7 or 8 per cent.
My final—

Mr. Ray Powell: At last.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says, "At last." The House will know that he always makes bogus points of order in Welsh debates on the Floor of the House or during sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee. He does not have two pennies to rub together when it comes to a brain. If he wants me to make a short speech, I suggest that he keeps quiet.
I shall conclude my remarks by referring to the dog that did not bark in the night. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke for a considerable time, as did the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) last Thursday, but they did not mention what the Labour party would do about local community charges and local business rates. It is political dishonesty that neither of them has the guts to tell the British public what the Labour party would do if it formed a Government. What would it do about domestic rates and business rates?

Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition do not have a clue what they would do, they cannot tell us?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right.
Unfortunately, between the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham on Thursday on the English revenue support grant reports and the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside this evening, a report appeared in The Times on 22 January. In that report we are told that the Labour party
is preparing to unveil"—

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members have already taken 46 minutes out of a 90-minute debate and Labour Members have taken only 25 minutes. You will know that 25 Labour Members represent Welsh constituencies while only seven Welsh constituencies are represented by Tory Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bennett: I have spoken for 10 minutes. during which there have been several interruptions. I am trying to bring my remarks to an end. I know that Opposition Members do not like it when I and my hon. Friends say that they have no policy.
We are told in The Times that the Labour party
is preparing to unveil plans to abolish the community charge and replace it with a property tax levied according to people's ability to pay.
Apparently the hon. Member for Dagenham will announce that at a conference in Cardiff next month.
The most important part of the report—it has not been confirmed or denied by any Opposition Member—is that the
proposals will include the possibility of people living in large shared households receiving separate bills based on a proportion of the value of the property.
That sounds suspiciously like the principle of the community charge. It is time that the Labour party came clean by telling us what it believes to be right.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I shall begin my contribution to the debate by asking the Secretary of State to listen with care to a quotation from a report in today's edition of The Independent—


Why does the Government insist on ignoring what authorities have been spending, relying instead on fictional figures? The Government figures arise from the wrong information being put into the computer in the first place.
That statement was made by Alan Ward, the Conservative leader of Bracknell Forest district council, not by the treasurer of Gwynedd, Powys or South Glamorgan. Even Conservative council members are saying that the wrong information has been used to set poll tax levels.
The poll tax is abhorrent, unjust, inequitable, iniquitous and regressive. I believe that the Secretary of State takes to same view. Unfortunately, he has not on this occasion had the courage of his convictions, and he will not be joining us in voting against the measure.
The Welsh public oppose the poll tax partly because they have been misled by Welsh Office Ministers and the Government about its level. The figures produced by the Welsh Office in December are a serious under-estimate. The Welsh Office said that the average poll tax would be £174. A month later, we find that every district says that the figure will be substantially more—perhaps 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. more. In my district, Ynys Mon, it will be 50 per cent. more.
The reason is that the Government have got all the figures wrong. They have under-estimated expenditure this year, never mind the fact that inflation is running at 8 per cent. Their figures include 3·4 per cent. for inflation next year. The Government have totally misunderstood the position in Wales. Now they say that it is the fault of local authorities that the poll tax will be more. Local authorities in Wales are to be held responsible for the way in which the Government have let the people down.
I remind the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that there will be a heavy political price to pay. He and his hon. Friends should have the courage of their convictions, like the Tory rebels last Thursday night. They will pay the price unless they join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Paul Murphy: We all thought that we would have more time to discuss this important matter. However, whatever antics the Tories get up to in the Chamber or anywhere else do not hide the fact that this is the most unpopular tax ever to hit the Principality of Wales. They are wholly responsible for it.
We all agree that the overall settlement is totally inadequate. It is 4 per cent. short of what is needed to maintain existing services. The Secretary of State keeps telling us that year after year local authorities grumble about the settlements. In Wales they have every right to grumble because over a decade they have been robbed of millions and millions of proper rate support grant.
The Secretary of State has said that local authorities in Wales are extravagant. He has given them £78 million for improvement grants in the valleys and elsewhere, but he has not told us in his empty promises that he has not given them a single extra penny to process those improvement grants.
Many hon. Members have mentioned transitional relief, as they should. Although the system was agreed with local authorities, its implementation by the Welsh Office is flawed. Councils have already told the Secretary of State that not every poll tax payer in Wales will pay the tax, as is happening in Scotland. They have told him that his

assumptions on council spending, on which the relief is based, are unreal. Under the so-called relief system, out of 855 communities in Wales, only 255 will receive relief. In South Glamorgan, out of 54 communities, only one will benefit. Thousands upon thousands of people will suffer as a direct result of the so-called relief system proposed by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has boasted about the unified business rate, but he has not told business people in Wales that new businesses will have no relief, that businesses which move will lose their relief, and that, out of 100,000 business properties in Wales, 70,000 will be losers and only 30,000 will be gainers.
Nor has the Secretary of State revealed the full facts about the poll tax. He has not revealed how he has robbed our councils of nearly £80 million which will go directly on to the shoulders of the poll tax payers. He has not told us about how he refused to listen to Welsh councils in meeting after meeting over the last three or four months. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) talked about Abraham Lincoln. Local authorities in Wales cannot all be wrong all the time about the level of their poll tax.
The Secretary of State has made the most disgraceful attack upon local authorities in Wales that I have heard. At least his predecessor, Lord Crickhowell, did not pretend to like councils in Wales. This Secretary of State came to Wales and said that local authorities were doing a good job. Today, Welsh local authorities will know what he really thinks of them. He has hinted darkly about inefficiency, overspending and irresponsibility. He cannot have it both ways and he is now in an awkward spot. He knows that his Back Benchers are opposed to the poll tax and he is trying to shift the blame on to the Welsh local authorities. The people of Wales will see through him. We know that there is only one person in Wales to blame for the poll tax, and that is the right hon. Gentleman. He has a great deal to answer for, and I urge the House to vote against the measures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): From all the sound and fury tonight, one would not think that the Labour party, when it was in office in 1976–77, was responsible for cutting the rate support grant in real terms by 4 per cent.; in the next year by 8 per cent.; and in the year after that, by 4 per cent. Labour Members claim that their hearts bleed for local government, but I for one do not believe it. If this Government had continued with the Labour Government's policy, this year Wales would receive only £650 million instead of £1,000 million. That shows the difference in the achievements of this Government compared with the Labour Government.
Cardiff is the capital city of Wales and sets the tone for so much of life in the Principality. The community charge that the Welsh Office believed was right for Cardiff was £157, a reduction of 22 per cent.—£43—on the average rate bill for the current year. It was the largest reduction in Wales. What has happened? South Glamorgan has raised the rate by £47 and Cardiff has raised it not by the £29 that we predicted, but by £78, a difference of 168 per cent. I do not think that any hon. Member could believe that that was anything but unfair.
Cardiff's capital expenditure budget this year rose by 35 per cent., and receipts were down from £25 million to £3.5 million. They paid for it this year to paint the picture for next year. The total spend in Cardiff this year is up by 20 per cent. Councillor Mungham, chairman of the finance committee, is now predicting an increase in the budget for next year of 30 per cent. How on earth can he predict such a rise? He is playing fast and loose because politics is involved: there is to be a city election next year. That is the long and the short of what Councillor Mungham and the Labour party are doing.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has obviously never understood what the total spending assessment included. It included an allowance of 7·5 per cent. for the teachers' pay rise; the personal social services were covered for the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and the disabled persons legislation and for training needs in social services; rises in police pay were included, as was highway maintenance; and some £32·9 million was made available for the cost of the community charge administration and benefit. Opposition Members obviously did not read their papers to discover what was happening. There was an 8·2 per cent. rise for those sectors.
There has been some misunderstanding about the unified business rate. Opposition Members do not appreciate that the amount of money to be raised from business in Wales has not increased: it has been reallocated according to the revaluation. For all the large increases, there have been gainers, too—a fact that people seem to overlook.
Of course, since 1973, there has been a change in real values and rents of properties, and everybody knows that: everyone who runs a shop or business will know how values and rents have risen in the past few years—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [19 January].

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 206.

Division No. 47]
11.44 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Q(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bright, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Day, Stephen


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Devlin, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Budgen, Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Burns, Simon
Dover, Den


Burt, Alistair
Dunn, Bob


Butcher, John
Durant, Tony


Butler, Chris
Dykes, Hugh


Butterfill, John
Eggar, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Emery, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Carttiss, Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Fallon, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Favell, Tony


Churchill, Mr
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Doran, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Blunkett, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) '
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Ingram, Adam


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville

Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel David


Forth, Eric
Major, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mans, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gardiner, George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gill, Christopher
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miller, Sir Hal


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mitchell, Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gregory, Conal
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hague, William
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Neil (Talton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, Sir William


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stokes, Sir John


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



Summerson, Hugo
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (1sl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Maxton, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N.


Morgan, Rhodri
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Nellist, Dave
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Prescott, John
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 53), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (House of Commons Paper No. 54), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Resolved,
That the Welsh Non-Domestic Rating (County Share and District Share) Report (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Resolved,
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (House of Commons Paper No. 55), a copy of which was laid before the House on 20th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

European Community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

EUROPEAN SCHOOL

That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 25.

Division No. 48]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gregory, Conal


Beith, A. J.
Grist, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hague, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howells, Geraint


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Emery, Sir Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Livsey, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garet-Jones, Tristan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gill, Christopher
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick




NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Bermingham, Gerald
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lambie, David
Wray, Jimmy


Loyden, Eddie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Major, Rt Hon John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Matins, Humfrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mans, Keith
Shelton, Sir William


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maude, Hon Francis
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trippier, David


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Wallace, James


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, Sir John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham,south): On a point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Motions Nos 6 and 7 on the Order Paper relate to two statutory instruments, one a definition of treaties order and the other a national Order in Council, which were debated yesterday morning in a Standing Committee.
I participated in that Standing Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and some Conservative Members were present—including, I think, a Foreign Office Minister.
We have just taken a decision on the first motion. I do not contest that, but are these proceedings in order and does that decision remain valid, because the proceedings of the Committee are not available in the Vote Office?
I had thought that there was a convention tht such statutory instruments were not laid before the House until the proceedings were available, so that hon. Members can find out the merits of what was discussed. I do not think that was easy to do on this occasion, except by word of mouth.
The special attention of the House was drawn to these matters by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the matters were discussed in Commitee, but they are not available in print for the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the circumstances, should the Government not withdraw the second motion, because the two are linked? One refers to the European Communities Act 1972 and the other is an order used under those powers.
It seems absurd for the House to have a Standing Committee to discuss the merits of the instruments, which are not discussed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as you know—it only discusses the technicalities. The Joint Committee feels that there is doubt about the vires of both of these instruments, but unless the record is available, hon. Members patently cannot make a judgment about the merits of the instrument.
Therefore, it seems wrong that the House should proceed with the expense of a record that is compiled and printed, but is not available to hon. Members. Once the votes have been taken, the instruments will not come back to the House—it is done and dusted. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money to provide a record for hon. Members to make a judgment about the merits of the case, and for it not to be available.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that the Leader of the House has just clocked in. Since he has some responsibilities in these matters, and since he is a lawyer by profession, I should have thought that he would have understood what my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have said about these two orders. To put it in a nutshell, in legal terms, they are ultra vires.
I suggest to the Leader of the House, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, that it would be a good idea if he came to the Dispatch Box, accepted my hon. Friend's suggestion and withdrew the second order as a consolation prize.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to assist the House to some extent. I bow to the superior learned wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and I concur in all that he has said about the legal interpretation of these two statutory instruments.
I recall that when we discussed the matter in Committee, yesterday, the two orders—which were interlinked in this sense; the first paved the way for the

second, and therefore had to be enacted forthwith—had waited for more than four years from the time of the judgment of the European Court in Luxembourg, which forced the change. The relevant judgment, which I am sure is constantly on the lips of the Leader of the House, was the European Court judgment of Hurd against the Inspector of Taxes, which was determined by that court on 19 January 1986. I am sure that, in many constituencies, scarcely a moment of the day passes without a constituent referring to that judgment.
The Government had allowed more than four years to pass after the relevant judgment without taking any action. It is therefore a little puzzling that they should now proceed with such precipitate haste—the day after the sitting of the Committee—without even doing the House the courtesy of making a report of the Committee's deliberations available. There is a considerable contrast between the dilatory nature of their initial response and the speed of their proceedings now. Surely it would be best for them to withdraw the matter for a short time, so that they can reflect and put it in order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I respond first to the first question? The issue of "ultra vires" does not concern the Chair. The original point of order was perfectly in order, legitimate and informative; but, although it informs the House, it does not stop it from proceeding with the business, and I have a responsibility to see that business is carried out.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that ruling, which was probably expected. Since the first point of order, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has also referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. May I draw your attention to another procedural matter which may be of interest to the Leader of the House?
We have just approved, through a Division, a domestic statutory instrument that implements an international treaty. That treaty, however, has not yet been ratified by the House, because the ratification of the treaty that obliges us to pass certain domestic legislation is the Question that you are about to put.
Irrespective of what records of the Committee's proceedings may exist, Madam Deputy Speaker, is it in order for the House to pass a domestic statutory instrument purporting to fulfil the international obligations of a treaty that the House has not yet approved—and, indeed, may not approve, if the Division that may be called does not receive a response from the Ayes?
I have put the point as clearly as I can. It may have a significant bearing on matters even more important than the orders.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I see that the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household are considering the matter. Surely there is a distinction between the point on which you ruled earlier—the question whether the report of the proceedings of a Committee that happened to sit yesterday should be available to us—and the much more substantive point raised, quite properly, by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman


asked whether it was possible for us to approve, as secondary legislation, a measure that requires the passage of primary legislation not yet approved by the House.
This is a matter of general rather than specific law. I am not aware that, in any instance—whether or not it relates to European Community business—we can vote on secondary legislation before the primary legislation has been approved. I should be grateful for a ruling. I realise that Government Front Benchers may not be prepared to comment immediately, but, as this is a matter of serious concern, I wonder whether the Leader of the House could do as he and the Whips have done on occasion in the past week, and arrange for the withdrawal of the motion that raises these procedural anxieties.
If the motion is in order perhaps we can be told as much, and return to it tomorrow. Surely, however, it would help the House to retain its dignity, save the Government from potential embarrassment and avoid irregular proceedings if the motion were withdrawn and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not put in the embarrassing position of having to make a ruling before the matter had been properly considered.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are clearly being asked potentially to vote on something that we have no right to vote on. You have accepted that the earlier points of order were legitimate points of order for the Chair. By what means can the House not decide these matters? Will the Leader of the House have to withdraw the motion, or could you accept a motion requesting withdrawal of the orders so that there could be a separate vote upon them when they have been properly published?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has to deal with the business that is before the House. The motion that is before the House, motion No. 7, is perfectly in order. It is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. It is for the Chair to carry out what is on the Order Paper and has been agreed by the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the original point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). There is an aspect that has not been considered: that the House has no means formally of knowing what happened in the Committee that considered the instrument. What appears on the Order Paper is unaffected by any vote that may have taken place in Committee.
If, for example, the Committee was dissatisfied with the instrument and voted against the Government, nothing would have happened; the matter would still have been reported to the House. All that the Committee vote on is whether to report it to the House. Even if the motion had been defeated, it would still have been reported to the House that the Committee had considered the instrument. Therefore, today's Order Paper is significantly uninformative. It is not associated with the report of the Committee's proceedings.
I had not realised until the hon. Member for Bradford, South pointed it out that the proceedings had not been printed. That illustrates my point: that the Order Paper cannot tell us what happened in Committee and whether the Committee was dissatisfied with the instrument. Only the report of the Committee's proceedings can tell us that.
On recent occasions, which have been even more embarrassing to the Leader of the House than this small matter, we have had to rely on the report of hon. Members as to what took place in a Committee. You will recollect that we had quite a long and angry debate one afternoon a week or so ago about who said what and about what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) did or did not say in a Standing Committee.
In this instance, we are again being asked to rely upon the evidence of hon. Members, not much of which has been proffered so far, as to what happened in the Committee. I put it to you that it is quite unreasonable for the House to be asked to vote on a matter such as this, when it does not know what happened in Committee.
I recognise that all that it is within your power to do is to put the Question on whatever the Government lay on the Order Paper. Therefore, it is the Leader of the House who is putting the Chair in an embarrassing position. Not content to ride roughshod over the rights of hon. Members, he puts the Chair in the embarrassing position of having no means of responding to their legitimate concerns.
The Leader of the House is affecting seriously to study the Order Paper but there is no apparent outcome of his study. Is it not time that he relieved you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of this embarrassment by rising to his feet—it may be late in the day and he may be a little unwilling to put you to this embarrassment, and why he is unwilling to remove the order from the Order Paper until the House has had an opportunity to be told what happened in Committee? Will you give him that opportunity, lest he should think that you might not call him, or that he might not catch your eye?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. Those who sit on the Treasury Bench have heard the concerned words that have been made on points of order. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, I have no alternative, and it is my duty, to put the motion on the Order Paper, which is perfectly correct.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 28.

Division No. 49]
[12.24 am


AYES


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Devlin, Tim


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Favell, Tony


Butler, Chris
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Franks, Cecil


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gill, Christopher


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cran, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Gregory, Conal


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Grist, Ian




NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winterton, Nicholas


Kirkwood, Archy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lambie, David



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


McFall, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hague, William
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Redwood, John


Hill, James
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Rhodes James, Robert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk sw)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Irvine, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knapman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Sir John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilshire, David


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maude, Hon Francis
Wood, Timothy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Yeo, Tim


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Miller, Sir Hal
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mills, Iain
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Greg Knight.


Moss, Malcolm

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to note during the Division that the Leader of the House sought the advice of the Clerks at the Table, but it would have been helpful—although I do not ask you to rule on this—if advice could have been taken earlier and the House could have avoided setting the precedent of considering an instrument before it knows what has been the outcome of the Committee sitting on the instrument. I raise the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing that there is little more that you can say about it, but hoping that something may be learned from it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The point has been noted.

Residential Homes (Income Support)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Michael Colvin: I welcome this opportunity to raise the subject of the difficulties that people on income support now face in meeting their fees in residential homes and, more particularly, in nursing homes. First, however, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) whom I am pleased to see in her place, who, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, may catch your eye later, and who sat through the night until 7.55 am on 20 December in order to be last hon. Member to speak in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate before time ran out. Her most pertinent questions on elderly people in nursing homes were not answered by a Minister then and have not been answered since. I hope that they will be answered tonight.
Through the early part of the past decade the Government have encouraged, through the provision of grants, the change from looking after old people in large geriatric hospitals to caring for them in much smaller homes rooted in the community. While local authorities have marked time because of financial constraints, the private sector has expanded fivefold during the period of office of this Government from 35,000 places in 1979 to nearly 200,000 places today—figures given to me by Help the Aged, which celebrates its golden jubilee this year. Currently, however, Government grants are well below the level required to meet even the ordinary running costs of a home providing the minimum laid-down standards of staffing and care.
Today we have a rising population of elderly people with an ever-lengthening life expectancy. "Social Trends" figures show that there are now 8.75 million people in Britain over the age of 65. Half a million require some form of care; three quarters of a million need residential care and 125,000 require nursing care—and this later group will grow as people live longer.
To meet this growing demand there has been a massive and very welcome increase in the provision of pleasant, homely, modestly sized nursing and residential homes throughout the country. There are several in my constituency like Colbury house, Totton, whose owners, Mr. and Mrs. Saunders, saw me only last weekend to lobby me about Government funding. Many of these homes are run by charities, whose usual policy is to charge only the direct operating costs against fee income, bearing the burden of general overheads, capital improvements and depreciation themselves. Such homes are caring and well run.
First, I would like to deal with nursing homes. Before 1988 these institutions could just about make ends meet on the basis of income derived from the Department of Social Services' contribution to the fees. Over the past two years, however, the situation has changed completely. By the middle of this year the Government will have awarded salary increases to nurses totalling approximately 50 per cent. in four years. We all applaud this move as right and fair; but if one considers that increase in the context of the cost of running a nursing home—where nursing and nursing-related salaries comprise almost 60 per cent. of total direct operating costs—one does not have to be a


mathematical genius to see that the Government have imposed, at a time of increasing shortage of nurses, additional operating costs of some 30 per cent. in four years. Nursing homes have no option but to pay these increases. They cannot pay less than the NHS and often they have to pay more, and they have also to meet the staffing levels that are laid down by the health authorities. In the same four years, inflation has exceeded 22 per cent. in all, and that has an effect on all the running costs of a nursing home.
The Government's response to the major increases in costs, which they have awarded or presided over, has been to increase the contribution to nursing home fees provided by the Department of Social Services by 3 per cent. in 1986, 5·7 per cent. in 1987, 2·7 per cent. in 1989 and 5·3 per cent. in 1990. The total increase in four years is only 17·7 per cent. as against a 39 per cent. increase in costs that are outside the control of nursing home operators.
These facts and figures are confirmed by a number of well-known, well-run charities providing, or involved in, nursing home accommodation, including the Royal United Kingdom Beneficent Association—RUKBA—Methodist Homes for the Aged, Help the Aged, the Abbeyfield Society and Age Concern. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Jean MacKenzie, a constituent of mine, who is the chairman of RUKBA, and the association's director, Mr. Bill Rathbone, who have spoken to me about these difficulties and whose work in this area is second to none.
Methodist Homes for the Aged says that the direct costs in its nursing homes without charging capital expenditure, depreciation or overheads were £265 a week in 1989, against a DSS contribution of only £190 a week. RUKBA reckons that its average cost a week was £229, slightly lower than that of Methodist Homes for the Aged because of differences in location and size. We are talking about a fees gap of £40 to £75 per week per head, which will grow as the announced DSS increase of £10 a week from April 1990 does not even meet inflation.
How does someone who is so poor that he needs income support find more than £2,000 a year? Does the DSS really maintain that its increased support meets the rising nursing costs imposed by the Government over the past two years, not to speak of inflation?
The position of residential homes is similar, even though the Department's response appears to be more realistic. They received an increase of 7 per cent. to £140 a week in 1989. A further 7 per cent. has been announced for April this year in the fees that the Department will pay, although on the face of it, no nursing is required. If an old person is fit and well, charities can just about make ends meet on the criteria that I have described, but most people do not move straight from being fit to needing full nursing care. They slip gently down the slope of increasing need for more and more care and nursing, becoming more and more dependent. They have to move a long way down that slope before they can be classed as very dependent and receive the extra £15 a week.
The Government have created a predicament for the elderly and their carers. First, they stimulate the provision of homes, rightly requiring rising standards to ensure that the care provided is what should be provided. Secondly, they create a financial gap as a result of one Department failing to match cost increases that are caused by another.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister realise the difficulty in finding a home whose fees are at DSS levels and which

provides proper care? Does she realise the appalling anguish and distress that is caused to those already in homes by fees shooting beyond what they can afford to pay, with that gap becoming too wide for charities to bridge, even when acting together? Does she realise that she is putting people in a position where they will be unable to stay in the home of their choice? In some parts of the country, residential homes—especially nursing homes—are going out of business at an alarming rate.
It is frequently said that the elderly are better off now than they have ever been. That may be so for those who have retired in the past five to 10 years, many of whom have occupational pensions that are inflation-proofed to some degree. It is not true of the generation of elderly people for whom charities such as RUKBA are now being asked to care in ever-increasing numbers. This generation, the over-80s, retired prior to 1975, before inflation took off. Many of them do not have occupational pensions. Even if they did, those pensions were almost invariably not inflation-proofed, and have therefore shrunk in value.
This generation saved for an old age which they thought might extend to their 70s. Today they live into their 80s and 90s, or even to 100. Continued survival is an uphill economic battle and they do not have the savings or the pensions that will enable them to meet the ever-growing gap between the fees that a nursing home must charge to cover its costs and what the Department of Social Services will contribute.
Charities are doing their best to make up the shortfall in an attempt to allow these old people, who have served our community well, to live and die in peace. They ought to enjoy a sense of security and be able to live in the home of their choice—not a home with high fees, but one operating reasonably and efficiently. Here we have a case of the Government's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Yet the Government owe a duty of care to this generation of old people. It is right to look to charities to do their best, but the massive increase in urgent requests for help from charities to cover the shortfall in fees has grown since 1988 to such an extent that those charities are in danger of being overwhelmed.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister, first, to acknowledge that the help presently provided is inadequate; secondly, to increase substantially the Department's contribution to fees—I know that we are talking about big money: and thirdly, to give to local authorities the power and resources to top up grants paid by Government so that old people are not turned out of their homes. I urge the Government to face the fact that care costs money.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on securing it, as well as on the eloquence with which he has made his case. The Minister will not be unaware that, in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate in which I had the good fortune to secure the last four and a half minutes, two hon. Members had bid to raise the topic, the other being my hon. Friend. Considering the relatively small number of hon. Members, 20, who were on the list, it is significant that two of us had chosen this topic.
I think the Minister will not be unaware that this subject is of concern to a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not wish to intrude on the time for the Minister's reply, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
The Minister will be aware that there is an increasing demand for places for old people and that that demand will increase solidly, at least until the turn of the century. One estimate is that we must provide 40 new beds a week in the public or private sector to cope with the demand. That means considerable capital investment.
At the moment, it is impossible for people running private residential homes and private nursing homes to recoup their capital costs, even down simply to paying the interest, through the charges that they levy if they have no means of making up the gap betwen the sum of DSS benefits and the charges which it would be reasonable for them to make.
I draw the Minister's attention again to my constituent, about whom I have written to her twice and on whom I centred my remarks in the debate on the Consolidated Fund. Florence Smith is 93 years of age. She has no means of support whatever other than the benefits that she gets from the state. She is in just about the cheapest nursing home, although a very respectable one, in our area. There is still a substantial gap between the sum of her benefits and the charges being levied. Her only relative is a daughter, herself an old-age pensioner and wholly dependent upon the state pension. From where is Florence Smith to make up the gap?
Perhaps the most depressing thing I have heard today came from my hon. Friend the Minister of Health when she was speaking to the Select Committee on Social Services. She said that, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is enacted, although there will be arrangements for topping up for the new entrants in the system entering residential or nursing care, there will be no such arrangements for those already in the system. Do I take it that Florence Smith, aged 93, can look forward to no relief?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his success in the ballot and on the skill with which he explained his case. I know that he has wanted to raise this issue for some time.
I was sorry not to reply to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in the brief time that she was given in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate—although, as she knows, I was poised to do so. She will also understand that during this debate I cannot reply in detail to her points about an individual constituent, Mrs. Florence Smith, although a letter to my hon. Friend is being prepared.
In responding to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and the short intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, I should like to develop two themes. First, I want to say something about the present social security arrangements. They aim to provide help in a way that is simple to understand and to administer. They are,

however, concerned with the generality of cases and they have to operate nationally, like other features of income support. Secondly, I want to explain that we, like my hon. Friends, recognise that the system should be improved, and I shall return to that point later.
I shall first explain a little of the background to public support through social security for the cost of care in homes. Since 1985, the amount of income support payable to residents of independent residential care and nursing homes has been governed by a system of national limits. Before that, each social security office set one maximum amount for fees in residential care homes and another for fees in nursing homes in its area, regardless of the type of care provided. That meant that an elderly person receiving non-specialised nursing care could claim as much benefit as, for instance, a person suffering from a terminal illness who had especially high care needs.
That was clearly not the best use of resources, and in April 1985 we introduced the present system of separate limits for six different types of care. Those limits are tied to the type of care that a home can provide and differentiate between levels of need and levels of cost, thus more satisfactorily targeting the funds available. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has suggested that, through the system as it was before 1985, we encourage a growth in independent provision only to remove that support, capriciously, later.
I should say that it was never really by design that social security became a major funding source for the private or voluntary sectors. The Government's view has always been that the right approach is a mix of private, voluntary and statutory provision, but the first concern of the social security system is to provide personal benefit to individuals in need of it. As a result, many people have enjoyed a wider choice of provision in that area. But the point has been made by others, including the Audit Commission and Sir Roy Griffiths, that the growth in independent provision, fuelled by the earlier social security rules, was not the best way to use public money—a point on which my hon. Friend put his finger. The Government are responding to that criticism in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The National limits are not rates, but maximum allowances towards fees. In addition, we provide an allowance for personal expenses or pocket money. My hon. Friends will be aware that expenditure on those limits has risen dramatically. In 1979, we were paying benefit to 12,000 claimants in residential care and nursing homes, at a cost of £10 million. Now there are 176,000 claimants resident in that type of accommodation, and they cost the taxpayer £1·1 billion.
That is an enormous increase. The changes in 1985 enabled us better to direct resources to those most in need of certain types of care, but I must stress that the majority of claimants in residential care and nursing homes throughout the country can meet their fees in full from their income and benefits.
As the House knows, we are committed to reviewing the limits every year as part of the general review of income support and other benefits. We take account of representations made to us by interested individuals and organisations, such as Age Concern and the National Federation of Housing Associations. Bearing in mind our responsibilities to other groups of elderly and disabled in their own homes, as well as the changing cost factors in care homes, such as registration standards and nurses' pay,


to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has referred, the increases that we have made in the past—and which we propose for this year—are to the Government's credit.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in October proposals for this year's increases in these limits. They will cost £100 million, increasing the money given to the vast majority of residents by an additional £10. I remind the House that, under our uprating proposals, this year will be the first year since 1985 in which all the limits will increase. When taking decisions on increases, we took account of a wide range of information on costs and charges in homes. This primarily came from the Department's own local office returns, independent research and detailed representations from outside bodies, to which I have referred already. We had also to bear in mind the Government's overall public expenditure objectives and to make the decisions in the light of the cash available for the benefit uprating as a whole.
In reviewing the limits, we considered the need for regional variations beyond the existing extension of £23 for London. The London extension was increased by more than 30 per cent. in April last year. We considered other regional differentials, but concluded that there was no sufficiently clear pattern of regional variation in charges to justify them and that it was better to use any extra funds available to improve the scheme as a whole. One of the improvements from 1991 will be that the new arrangements for those entering residential care or nursing homes will include the payment of housing benefit, which will automatically take account of regional variations in cost.
I must emphasise that it has never been the policy of this Government—nor could it be the policy of any Government—to undertake to meet all fees charged by homes, however high they may be. We set the limits with due regard not only to the interests of the residents and the homes concerned, but also to the interests of the taxpayer. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone about the problems for capital investment and the renovation of homes, but I think that she would agree that those matters have to be regarded as business decisions to be made by those running the businesses, in the context of their knowledge of existing financial provision. I shall deal later with arrangements for the future. We are also mindful of the fact that a prime responsibility for providing nursing and medical care to those in need of it lies with the National Health Service.
It is important to emphasise that income support is only one source of public help for those in need of care. The NHS has powers and duties to provide a place in a hospital or in a contractual bed in an independent nursing home. Local authorities, too, have responsibilities to provide accommodation for those who, through age or disability, are assessed as in need of it if it is not otherwise available.
These arrangements are, of course, for local decision, but I do not think that these very important powers for helping people needing such care should be overlooked in considering care provision. Expenditure on community health services in England alone has also risen—from £370 million in 1978–79 to £1.6 billion in 1988–89.
The social security system, good as it has been—and good as it still is—in providing hundreds of thousands of people with the power to choose residential or nursing care, is only part of state provision. The provision of suitable care services for what, as my hon. Friend has

pointed out, is a growing number of elderly people, is a challenge that we are determined to meet. But as my hon. Friends are aware, the income support scheme is a national benefit system and is not geared to respond to the rapidly changing and developing system of care in this country.
We recognise that there are problems with the present system. The Government have given a priority to expenditure on community care, and their record is impressive. We recognise also that the arrangements for people in homes have serious drawbacks. It could indeed be said that income support arrangements have contained an in-built bias towards residential and nursing home care when, perhaps, priority should have been given to developing services to enable people to be supported in their own homes. It is also difficult to assess whether social security payments have been giving value for money. The Government's proposals for reforming the funding of residential care and nursing homes will ensure that, in future people enter a home only when a proper assessment of their needs has been made.
That brings me to my second theme. The Government's White Paper "Caring for People" and the Health Service and Community Care Bill now before the House will introduce fundamental changes to the structure of hell) we can provide. Local authorities, via social services departments, will be responsible in collaboration with health care professionals for assessing the needs of new applicants for public support for residential or nursing care. If care in a home represents the right choice for an individual, it will be the responsibility of the social services authority to arrange a place in a suitable home.
Social services authorities will be expected to make maximum possible use of independent providers of residential and nursing home care. They will need to estimate the number of places needed and arrange to meet projected demand. There will be no nationally set limits to the level of fees which may be met by local authorities, and each local authority will exercise its own purchasing power to achieve best value for money because authorities are better placed to judge local care needs, and in future will have the authority and resources to respond quickly to change.
It is also worth remembering that in London arid other metropolitan areas those same local authorities which are now setting standards in homes will be funding the new scheme. I think that this answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside about the source of conflict he sees in locally set standards and centrally set limits.
I should emphasise that the changes are not about making savings. We shall transfer to the local authorities the resources which the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care for those receiving social security payments in residential care and nursing homes. The transferred resources will allow for the projected growth in the number of people requiring support. The Government believe that the introduction of competitive tendering disciplines to the residential and nursing homes will enhance the ability of social service authorities to obtain the best value for public money. They will be in a strong position to use their new-found purchasing power to ensure high quality care for those who really need it.
Our policy on the role of the National Health Service in providing continuous care was also reaffirmed in the White Paper. We made it clear that health authorities will still be


expected to provide continuous care services in parallel with the independent sector and with the new system of local authority support. Each local authority and health authority will agree on the proper local balance of provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to the top-up powers proposed for local authorities in respect of people who are already claimants in local authority homes. As she said, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone as I do, I know that she will pursue the matter with her usual vigour.
I am sorry that I cannot offer my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside an easy solution to the

problems identified by RUKBA and other organisations. However, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom my hon. Friend has written, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and members of RUKBA in the near future to hear their concerns direct if that would help.
I conclude by repeating that the Government are taking clear and concrete steps to address the structural problems in the system of support which have led to the problems that have been raised this evening. We are convinced that the changes will be of major benefit to those on behalf of whom my hon. Friends have spoken so eloquently, and I am very grateful to both of them for giving me the opportunity to spell this out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.